United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.H., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

MAINTENANCE WORKING CAPITAL FUND, 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1023 

Issued: August 13, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 2, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 9, 2015 nonmerit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Because more than 180 days 

elapsed between the last merit decision dated July 9, 2014 to the filing of this appeal, the Board 

lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of this case. Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ 

Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over 

the nonmerit issue.2 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly found that appellant abandoned his request for a 

hearing. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

2

 Appellant submitted new arguments on appeal. The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the 

case record that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c). 
2

On appeal, appellant contends that he was 15 minutes late in making the telephone 

conference call and that he called several times, but was unable to get through. He also stated 

that he left three messages with his claims examiner explaining the situation, but never received 

any response. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 26, 2014 appellant, then a 57-year-old aircraft mechanical parts repairman, 

filed an occupational disease claim alleging that the continued use of a supplied air hood caused 

a neck strain. He first realized that his condition was caused or aggravated by his employment 

on March 10, 2014. 

Following the development of the evidence, by decision dated July 9, 2014, OWCP 

denied the claim as the medical component of fact of injury was not established. 

On July 28, 2014 OWCP received appellant’s July 22, 2014 request for a telephonic 

hearing before OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

By letter dated January 7, 2015, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review notified 

appellant that a telephone hearing was scheduled for February 10, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. eastern 

standard time (EST). It instructed him to call the provided toll-free number a few minutes before 

the hearing time and enter in a pass code when prompted. 

By decision dated March 9, 2015, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review found that 

appellant abandoned his requested hearing. It found that he received written notification of the 

hearing 30 days in advance, but failed to appear. The Branch of Hearings and Review further 

determined that nothing in the record established that appellant contacted, or attempted to 

contact, OWCP, either prior to or subsequent to the scheduled hearing to explain his failure to 

participate. It concluded that he had abandoned his hearing request. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Under FECA and its implementing regulations, a claimant who has received a final 

adverse decision by OWCP is entitled to receive a hearing upon writing to the address specified 

in the decision within 30 days of the date of the decision for which a hearing is sought.3

 Unless 

otherwise directed in writing by the claims examiner, OWCP’s hearing representative will mail a 

notice of the time and place of the hearing to the claimant and any representative at least 30 days 

before the scheduled date.4

 OWCP has the burden of proving that it mailed notice of a scheduled 

hearing to a claimant.5 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.617(b). 

5 See Michelle R. Littlejohn, 42 ECAB 463 (1991). 
3

A hearing before the Branch of Hearings and Review can be considered abandoned only 

under very limited circumstances.6 With respect to abandonment of hearing requests, Chapter 

2.1601.6(g) of OWCP’s procedure manual provides in relevant part that failure of the claimant to 

appear at the scheduled hearing, failure to request a postponement, and failure to request in 

writing within 10 days after the date set for the hearing that another hearing be scheduled shall 

constitute abandonment of the request for a hearing. Under these circumstances, the Branch of 

Hearings and Review will issue a formal decision finding that the claimant has abandoned his or 

her request for a hearing and return the case to the district office.7

ANALYSIS 

Following OWCP’s July 9, 2014 decision denying his claim, appellant requested a 

telephonic hearing before an OWCP hearing representative. On January 7, 2015 OWCP notified 

appellant that his hearing was scheduled for February 10, 2015 at 1:00 p.m., EST. It provided a 

toll-free number and a pass code to use at the time of the hearing. Appellant did not request a 

postponement, failed to call in at the scheduled hearing, and failed to provide any notification for 

such failure to OWCP within 10 days of the scheduled date of the hearing. 

On appeal, appellant contends that he was 15 minutes late in making the telephone 

conference call. He later stated that he called several times, but was unable to get through. 

Appellant also stated that he left three messages with his claims examiner explaining the 

situation, but never received a response. There is no evidence of record that he provided this 

information to OWCP within 10 days of the scheduled date of the hearing. The Board finds that 

appellant abandoned his request for an oral hearing.8

 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant abandoned his request for an oral hearing before an 

OWCP hearing representative on February 10, 2015. 

 6 Claudia J. Whitten, 52 ECAB 483 (2001). 

7

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Hearings and Review of the Written Record, Chapter 

2.1601.6(g) (October 2011). 

8 C.H., Docket No. 14-620 (issued June 25, 2014). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated March 9, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: August 13, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board