United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.T., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

CUSTOMS & BORDER PATROL, 

Columbus, NM, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1579 

Issued: November 18, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 15, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from the May 6, 2015 nonmerit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 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 merits of the case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted new evidence following OWCP’s May 6, 2015 decision. However, as 

OWCP did not consider this evidence in reaching a final decision, the Board may not consider it for the first time on 

appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1); Joseph F. McHale, 45 ECAB 669 (1994). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 24, 2013 appellant, then a 30-year-old border patrol officer, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1), alleging that on April 11, 2013 while participating in training drills 

which included running and doing lunges, she twisted her left knee. Appellant’s supervisor did 

not dispute the factual elements of her claim. The employing establishment did not indicate that 

appellant stopped work at that time. 

In a statement dated July 11, 2014, appellant indicated that she was injured in 2013 while 

attending the employing establishment’s basic training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center (FLETC). She was treated by an orthopedist on April 24, 2014 and was placed on light 

duty and prescribed physical therapy. Appellant reported being pregnant. She submitted 

employing establishment health unit notes dated April 12 and 23, 2013 prepared by a physician 

assistant, who treated her for left knee pain. Appellant reported doing lunges and jumping jacks 

while training and injuring her left knee. The physician assistant diagnosed left knee pain, 

possible meniscal involvement. 

Appellant came under the treatment of Dr. Ralph W. Morales, an osteopath and Boardcertified orthopedist, on April 23, 2013, for a left knee injury. She reported twisting her left knee 

on April 11, 2013 during physical training exercises at the FLETC. Dr. Morales diagnosed left 

knee capsular strain and anterior cruciate ligament tear. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. David J. Mansfield, a Board-certified orthopedist, on 

July 22 and August 25, 2014, for moderate bilateral knee pain located in the patella femoral area. 

She reported sustaining a work-related hyperflexion injury occurring on March 1, 2013. 

Dr. Mansfield diagnosed bilateral knee pain and left anterior cruciate ligament tear and 

recommended a functional left knee brace for stability. He returned appellant to sedentary lightduty work. 

By letter dated August 28, 2014, OWCP advised appellant of the type of factual and 

medical evidence needed to establish her claim. It specifically requested that she substantiate the 

factual elements of her claim and respond to a questionnaire. 

Appellant submitted reports from Dr. Morales dated August 25, 2014, previously of 

record. She also submitted a narrative statement providing additional factual information 

concerning the incident on April 11, 2013. 

In a decision dated November 19, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

evidence did not support that the injury or events occurred in the performance of duty. 

In an appeal request form dated March 12, 20153

 and postmarked March 27, 2015, 

appellant requested an oral telephone hearing before an OWCP hearing representative. She also 

submitted additional evidence. 

 3

 The Board notes that appellant indicated March 12, 2014 as the date of her oral hearing request. However, as 

the appeal request form reflected that it was attached to the November 19, 2014 OWCP decision, the Board 

concludes that appellant meant March 12, 2015. 
3

In a decision dated May 6, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing as 

it found that the request was untimely filed. Appellant was informed that her request was denied 

as she had not made her request for oral hearing within 30 days of November 19, 2014, and that 

the request was further denied because the issues in this case could equally well be addressed by 

requesting reconsideration from OWCP and submitting evidence not previously considered. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8124(b)(1) of FECA provides that “a claimant for compensation not satisfied 

with a decision of the Secretary ... is entitled, on request made within 30 days after the date of 

the issuance of the decision, to a hearing on his claim before a representative of the Secretary.”4

 

Sections 10.617 and 10.618 of the federal regulations implementing this section of FECA 

provide that a claimant shall be afforded a choice of an oral hearing or a review of the written 

record by a representative of the Secretary.5 A claimant is entitled to a hearing or review of the 

written record as a matter of right only if the request is filed within the requisite 30 days as 

determined by postmark or other carrier’s date marking and before the claimant has requested 

reconsideration.6 Although there is no right to a review of the written record or an oral hearing if 

not requested within the 30-day time period, OWCP may within its discretionary powers grant or 

deny appellant’s request and must exercise its discretion.7

ANALYSIS 

Appellant requested a telephone hearing in a request dated March 12, 2015 and 

postmarked on March 27, 2015. This was more than 30 days after the November 19, 2014 

OWCP decision. Section 8124(b)(1) is unequivocal on the time limitation for requesting a 

hearing.8 Because the hearing request was untimely filed, appellant was not entitled to an oral 

hearing. 

OWCP has the discretionary power to grant an oral hearing when a claimant is not 

entitled to one as a matter of right. It exercised this discretion in its May 6, 2015 decision, 

finding that appellant’s issue could be addressed by requesting reconsideration and submitting 

additional evidence. This basis for denying her request for a hearing is a proper exercise of 

OWCP’s authority.9

 Accordingly, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s 

request for an oral hearing. 

 4

 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1). 

5

 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.616, 10.617. 

6 Id. at § 10.616(a). 

7 Delmont L. Thompson, 51 ECAB 155 (1999); Eddie Franklin, 51 ECAB 223 (1999). 

8 William F. Osborne, 46 ECAB 198 (1994). 

9 Mary B. Moss, 40 ECAB 640, 647 (1989). 
4

On appeal, appellant indicated that her injury was directly related to her job and occurred 

while training at FLETC. She referenced additional evidence submitted in support of her claim. 

However, as noted, the Board does not have jurisdiction over the merits of the claim. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 6, 2015 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: November 18, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board