United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.E., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OFFICE OF 

FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE, 

Detroit, MI, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1918 

Issued: December 14, 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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 25, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a May 19, 2015 nonmerit 

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

has elapsed since the last merit decision on March 11, 2014, to the filing of this appeal, pursuant 

to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2 (c) and 501.3, the 

Board lacks jurisdiction over the merits of this case. 

On appeal appellant briefly refers to participating in training and a delay in filing. To the 

extent that she is alleging that she was unable to file an appeal in a timely manner, she has not 

demonstrated compelling circumstances to extend the time period.2

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2 See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e). 
2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for a hearing before an 

OWCP hearing representative. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 10, 2013 appellant, then a 46-year-old supervisory equal opportunity 

specialist, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained an 

emotional condition, as well as chest pains and headaches, as a result of her federal employment. 

On the claim form, she alleged that her duties had changed and the stress of meeting goals and 

managing staff became unbearable. 

By decision dated March 11, 2014, OWCP denied the claim for compensation. It found 

that appellant had not established a compensable work factor. Appeal rights were properly 

enclosed. Appellant submitted additional medical evidence on March 13 and 17, 2014. 

On April 11, 2014 appellant faxed to OWCP a letter stating that she “would like to file 

for a hearing” regarding her claim. She also wrote that if possible she would “like a 

reconsideration of my claim.” 

By letter dated April 18, 2014, OWCP advised appellant that she could only pursue one 

appeal procedure at a time. It indicated that she needed to specify which appeal right she wanted 

to pursue, and if a hearing was requested, the request must be sent to Washington, DC. 

The record indicates that appellant faxed a letter to OWCP on August 6, 2014 requesting 

a hearing. The letter was stamped as received by OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review on 

August 12, 2014.3

By decision dated September 3, 2014, OWCP found that the request for a hearing was 

untimely. It found the hearing request was postmarked on August 11, 2014, more than 30 days 

after the March 11, 2014 decision. OWCP indicated that it had considered the request and 

determined that the issue could equally well be addressed by requesting reconsideration and 

submitting new and relevant evidence. 

The September 3, 2014 decision was sent to appellant’s last known address. The record 

contains a memorandum of telephone call (Form CA-110) indicating that she had inquired about 

her claim and reported that she did not receive a September 3, 2014 decision. OWCP indicated 

that another copy would be mailed. 

On December 22, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration. She submitted additional 

evidence on January 15, 2015. 

 3

 It appears that the letter was forwarded to the Branch of Hearings and Review by envelope with a postmark of 

August 11, 2014. 
3

By decision dated March 19, 2015, OWCP denied merit review of the claim. It found the 

evidence was insufficient to warrant merit review. 

In a decision dated May 19, 2015, OWCP again found that the hearing request 

postmarked August 11, 2014 was untimely filed. The decision is identical to the September 3, 

2014 decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8124(b)(1) of FECA provides in pertinent part: 

“Before review under section 8128(a) of this title, a claimant for compensation 

not satisfied with a decision of the Secretary under subsection (a) of this title is 

entitled, on request made within 30 days after the date of the issuance of the 

decision, to a hearing on [her] claim before a representative of the Secretary.”4

 As section 8124(b)(1) is unequivocal in setting forth the time limitation for requesting a 

hearing, a claimant is not entitled to a hearing as a matter of right unless the request is made 

within the requisite 30 days.5

ANALYSIS 

On the present appeal, the only decision over which the Board has jurisdiction is the 

May 19, 2015 denial of a hearing request. OWCP issued a merit decision dated March 11, 2014 

denying appellant’s claim for compensation. On April 11, 2014 appellant faxed a letter which 

requested both a hearing and reconsideration. After OWCP requested clarification, she 

submitted a letter postmarked August 11, 2014 requesting a hearing. OWCP found the 

August 11, 2014 request was untimely. 

When OWCP receives a letter that both requests a hearing and reconsideration, it should 

properly consider the request for a hearing first. As the Board explained in Johnny R. Mullins,6

since a hearing may be granted only before a reconsideration review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a), 

OWCP must first consider the request for a hearing. If the original request for a hearing was 

timely, then OWCP should properly grant the hearing request.7

The Board finds that appellant faxed a hearing request to OWCP’s Branch of Hearings 

and Review on April 11, 2014. However, under 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1), the hearing request must 

be made within 30 days after OWCP’s decision. The 30th day after the March 11, 2014 OWCP 

 4

 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1). 

5 See William F. Osborne, 46 ECAB 198 (1994). 

6

 Docket No. 05-475 (issued June 14, 2005). See also Mary G. Allen, 40 ECAB 190 (1988). 

7

 In Mullins, appellant requested a hearing and reconsideration of a July 14, 2004 OWCP decision in a July 27, 

2004 letter. He subsequently submitted a hearing request postmarked August 25, 2004. The Board found that the 

July 27, 2004 hearing request was timely and remanded the case for an oral hearing. 
4

decision was Thursday, April 10, 2014. Since appellant faxed the letter on April 11, 2014, it is 

untimely filed. 

The Board has held that OWCP, in its broad discretionary authority to administer FECA, 

has power to hold hearings in circumstances where no legal provision is made for such hearings, 

and OWCP must exercise its discretion in such circumstances.8 In this case, OWCP advised 

appellant that she could submit additional relevant evidence on the issue through the 

reconsideration process. This is considered a proper exercise of OWCP’s discretionary 

authority.9 The Board accordingly finds that OWCP properly denied the request for a hearing in 

this case. 

On appeal appellant asserted that her request for reconsideration was denied and her 

documents were not properly reviewed. The only issue on appeal is the denial of the request for 

a hearing. As discussed, the hearing request in this case was untimely. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for a hearing as 

untimely. 

 8 Mary B. Moss, 40 ECAB 640 (1989); Rudolph Bermann, 26 ECAB 354 (1975). 

9 See Mary E. Hite, 42 ECAB 641, 647 (1991). 
5

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated May 19, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: December 14, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board