United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.L., widow of J.L., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ALCOHOL, 

TOBACCO, FIREARMS, & EXPLOSIVES, 

Washington, DC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1853 

Issued: January 2, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 20, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 21, 2014 nonmerit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying her request for 

review of the written record by the Branch of Hearings and Review. The last merit decision of 

record was OWCP’s January 15, 2014 decision denying appellant’s claim for survivor’s benefits. 

Because more than 180 days has elapsed between the January 15, 2014 decision and the filing of 

this appeal on August 20, 2014, and pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of 

this case.2

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 For decisions issued prior to November 19, 2008, a claimant had up to one year to file an appeal. An appeal of 

OWCP decisions issued on or after November 19, 2008 must be filed within 180 days of the decision. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e). 
2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request for a 

review of the written record as untimely filed. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 16, 1962 the employee, then a 36-year-old special investigator for the 

Internal Revenue Service, sustained an injury while observing an illegal distillery in a wooded 

area and experienced chest pain, chills, profuse sweating, and nausea. OWCP accepted the claim 

for cervical sprain, degeneration of lumbar intervertebral disc, and acute myocardial infarction. 

The employee stopped work on September 16, 1962 and received wage-loss compensation for 

which he was placed on periodic rolls. 

The employee died on September 27, 2013. The death certificate noted the immediate 

cause of death as cardiomyopathy. Other significant conditions contributing to the employee’s 

death were listed as coronary artery disease. 

On November 20, 2013 appellant filed a claim for compensation by widow, widower, 

and/or children (Form CA-5) for survivor’s benefits. 

By decision dated January 15, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as she had failed to 

establish a causal relationship between the employee’s death and the accepted September 16, 

1962 work injury, cervical sprain, degeneration of lumbar intervertebral disc, and acute 

myocardial infarction. 

On May 21, 2014 appellant requested review of the written record before the Branch of 

Hearings and Review. She argued that she could not appeal the January 15, 2014 decision within 

30 days because the physician delayed in providing her a report which related the employee’s 

death to the accepted work injury. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a May 16, 2014 medical report from 

Dr. Frederick A. Dressler, Board-certified in internal medicine, and also resubmitted the 

employee’s death certificate. 

By decision dated July 21, 2014, the Branch of Hearings and Review denied appellant’s 

request for a review of the written record finding that her request was not made within 30 days of 

the January 15, 2014 OWCP decision. The Branch of Hearings and Review further determined 

that the issue in the case could equally well be addressed by requesting reconsideration from 

OWCP and submitting evidence not previously considered which established that the employee’s 

death was caused by the accepted work-related injury/conditions. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8124(b)(1) of FECA provides that before review under section 8128(a) of this 

title, 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 or 
3

her claim before a representative of the Secretary.3

 Section 10.615 of the federal regulations 

implementing this section of FECA provides that a claimant shall be afforded a choice of an oral 

hearing or a review of the written record.4

 OWCP regulations provide that the request must be 

sent within 30 days of the date of the decision for which a hearing is sought and also that the 

claimant must not have previously submitted a reconsideration request (whether or not it was 

granted) on the same decision.5

The Board has held that OWCP, in its broad discretionary authority in the administration 

of FECA,6

 has the power to hold hearings in certain circumstances where no legal provision was 

made for such hearings and that OWCP must exercise this discretionary authority in deciding 

whether to grant a hearing.7 OWCP procedures, which require it to exercise its discretion to 

grant or deny a hearing when the request is untimely or made after reconsideration, are a proper 

interpretation of FECA and Board precedent.8

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, appellant requested review of the written record on May 21, 2014. 

Her request was made more than 30 days after the date of issuance of OWCP’s January 15, 2014 

merit decision. Therefore, OWCP properly found in its July 21, 2014 decision that appellant was 

not entitled to an oral hearing or examination of the written record as a matter of right because 

her request was not made within 30 days of its January 15, 2014 decision.9

OWCP then properly exercised its discretion by stating that it had considered the matter 

and had denied appellant’s request for an examination of the written record because the issue of 

causal relationship could be addressed through a reconsideration application. The Board has 

held that the only limitation on OWCP’s authority is reasonableness and an abuse of discretion is 

generally shown through proof of manifest error, clearly unreasonable exercise of judgment, or 

actions taken which are contrary to both logic and probable deduction from established facts.10 

In this case, the evidence of record does not indicate that OWCP abused its discretion in its 

denial of appellant’s request for an examination of the written record. Accordingly, the Board 

finds that OWCP properly denied her request.11

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.615. 

5 Id. at § 10.616(a). 

6

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

7 Marilyn F. Wilson, 52 ECAB 347 (2001). 

8 Teresa M. Valle, 57 ECAB 542 (2006). 

9

 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Hearings and Reviews of the 

Written Record, Chapter 2.1601.4(a) (October 2011). 

10 Daniel J. Perea, 42 ECAB 214, 221 (1990). 

11 D.P., Docket No. 14-308 (issued April 21, 2014); D.J., Docket No. 12-1332 (issued June 21, 2013). 
4

On appeal, appellant alleges that the employee’s death was caused by the September 16, 

1962 work injury. As explained above, the Board does not have jurisdiction over the merits of 

the claim for survivor’s benefits.12

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for an examination of 

the written record. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’ 

decision dated July 21, 2014 is affirmed. 

Issued: January 2, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 12 Supra note 2.