United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

K.K., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Buffalo, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1527 

Issued: November 5, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 25, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from the June 11, 2014 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 this nonmerit decision. The last merit decision of record was the April 15, 2013 

decision of OWCP. Because more than 180 days elapsed from issuance of the last merit decision 

to the filing of this appeal on June 25, 2014, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of 

this claim.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for a review of the 

written record as untimely. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

2 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

OWCP accepted that on October 24, 2004 appellant, then a 47-year-old mail handler, 

sustained a lumbar sprain/strain due to moving an all-purpose container filled with mail. 

Appellant stopped work on October 24, 2004 and returned to his regular work the next day. 

Appellant claimed that he sustained disability from October 27, 2004 to April 15, 2005 

due to his October 24, 2004 work injury. OWCP denied his claim in decisions dated 

February 3, 2006, May 15, 2008 and August 4, 2009. The Board affirmed its denial of 

appellant’s disability claim in decisions dated January 15, 20093

 and May 18, 2010.4

In late March 2012, appellant requested authorization from OWCP for several medical 

procedures, including epidural steroid injection of his cervical, thoracic and lumbosacral spines 

and destruction by neurolytic agent injection of the facet joints of his lumbosacral spine. 

In an April 15, 2013 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s March 2012 request for 

authorization of the medical procedures. It found that the medical evidence did not establish that 

the procedures were necessary to treat his October 24, 2004 work injury. 

In a letter dated June 1, 2014 and postmarked June 2, 2014, appellant requested a review 

of the written record by an OWCP hearing representative.5

In a June 11, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s request for a review of the written 

record. It found that his request was untimely because OWCP’s last merit decision was issued 

on April 15, 2013 and his request for a review of the written record was postmarked on 

June 2, 2014. Since appellant’s request was after 30 days, he was not, as a matter of right, 

entitled to a review of the written record. OWCP considered his request for a review of the 

written record, and exercising its discretion, determined that the issue in this case could equally 

well be addressed by requesting reconsideration from the district office and submitting evidence 

not previously considered addressing the causal relation between the requested medical 

procedures and a work-related condition. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8124 of FECA provides that a claimant is entitled to a hearing before an OWCP 

representative when a request is made within 30 days after issuance of an OWCP final decision.6

 

OWCP’s regulations have expanded section 8124 to provide the opportunity for a “review of the 

written record” before an OWCP hearing representative in lieu of an “oral hearing.”7

 It has 

 3

 Docket No. 08-1829 (issued January 15, 2009). 

4

 Docket No. 09-2206 (issued May 18, 2010). 

5

 Appellant did not identify a particular OWCP decision, but the April 15, 2013 decision was the last decision 

issued by OWCP at the time of his request. 

6

 5 U.S.C. § 8124. 

7

 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.616, 10.618. The date of the request is determined by the postmark or other carrier’s date 

marking. Id. at § 10.616(a). 
3

provided that such review of the written record is also subject to the same requirement that the 

request be made within 30 days of OWCP’s final decision.8

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

of FECA, 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.9

 The principles underlying OWCP’s authority to grant or deny a 

written review of the record are analogous to the principles underlying its authority to grant or 

deny a hearing. OWCP’s procedures, which require OWCP to exercise its discretion to grant or 

deny a request for a review of the written record when such a request is untimely or made after 

reconsideration or an oral hearing, are a proper interpretation of FECA and Board precedent.10

ANALYSIS 

 Appellant’s June 2, 2014 request for a review of the written record was made more than 

30 days after the date of issuance of OWCP’s prior decision dated April 15, 2013. Thus, he was 

not entitled to a review of the written record as a matter of right.11 OWCP properly found its 

June 11, 2014 decision that appellant was not entitled to a review of the written record as a 

matter of right because his request was not made within 30 days of the April 15, 2013 decision. 

OWCP also has the discretionary power to grant a review of the written record when a 

claimant is not entitled to a review of the written record as a matter of right. In its June 11, 2014 

decision, it considered appellant’s request for a review of the written record. OWCP determined 

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

district office and submitting evidence not previously considered which addressed the causal 

relation between the requested medical procedures and a work-related condition. The Board has 

held that as the only limitation on OWCP’s authority is reasonableness, 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.12 

In the present case, the evidence of record does not establish that OWCP abused its discretion by 

denying appellant’s request for a review of the written record.13

 8 See Michael J. Welsh, 40 ECAB 994 (1989). 

9 Henry Moreno, 39 ECAB 475 (1988). 

10 See supra note 8. 

11 Appellant requested a review of the written record in a document postmarked June 2, 2014 and, therefore, his 

request was made on June 2, 2014. See supra note 7. 

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

13 On appeal, appellant argued that OWCP did not adequately pay for medical treatment of his back condition. 

However, the merits of his claim are not currently before the Board and he did not show that his request for review 

of the written record was timely filed. 
4

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for a review of the 

written record as untimely. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 11, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: November 5, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board