United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BULK MAIL 

CENTER, Memphis, TN, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1823 

Issued: January 5, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 19, 2014 appellant timely appealed the July 8, 2014 nonmerit decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), which issued its latest merit decision on 

December 23, 2013; more than 180 days prior to the filing of the instant appeal. 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether the Branch of Hearings and Review properly denied appellant’s 

request for a hearing. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

Appellant, a 55-year-old clerk, injured her right knee in the performance of duty on 

August 3, 1981. OWCP accepted her claim for right medial meniscus tear, right patella 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

dislocation -- closed, chondromalacia of the right patella, and right knee arthritis. In 

October 2013, it expanded appellant’s claim to include left lateral ankle sprain and left closed 

fracture of the fifth metatarsal bone.2 

By decision dated December 23, 2013, OWCP denied 154.68 hours of claimed lost wages 

during the period June 8 through October 19, 2013.3 

Appellant subsequently requested an oral hearing utilizing the appeal request form that 

accompanied OWCP’s December 23, 2013 decision. Although the request is dated January 1, 

2014, the Branch of Hearings and Review’s date stamp indicates appellant’s hearing request was 

not received until February 4, 2014.4

 

By decision dated July 8, 2014, the Branch of Hearings and Review denied appellant’s 

hearing request as untimely. An OWCP hearing representative noted that OWCP issued its 

decision on December 23, 2013 and appellant’s hearing request was postmarked January 30, 

2014; which was more than 30 days after OWCP’s decision. Consequently, she found that 

appellant was not entitled to a hearing as a matter of right. The hearing representative also 

considered whether to grant appellant a discretionary hearing, but decided that the question of 

appellant’s entitlement to wage-loss compensation could equally well be addressed by her 

requesting reconsideration before OWCP. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

A claimant, injured on or after July 4, 1966, who has received a final adverse decision by 

OWCP may obtain a hearing by writing to the address specified in the decision.5 The hearing 

request must be sent within 30 days (as determined by postmark or other carrier’s date marking) 

of the date of the decision for which a hearing is sought.6 The claimant must not have previously 

submitted a reconsideration request (whether or not it was granted) on the same decision.7 If the 

request is not made within 30 days, a claimant is not entitled to a hearing as a matter of right. 

However, the Branch of Hearings and Review may exercise its discretion to either grant or deny 

a hearing.8

 2

 Appellant injured her left lower extremity on May 13, 2013 when her right knee buckled causing her to twist her 

left ankle. 

3

 OWCP authorized payment for a total of 6.57 hours for medical appointments on August 8 and 

October 18, 2013. 

4

 The record includes an imaged copy of the envelope that contained the hearing request; however, the postmark 

date is illegible. The request was properly addressed to the Branch of Hearings and Review in accordance with the 

instructions on the appeal request form. 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a). 

6 Id.

7 Id.

8

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8124(b)(1) and 8128(a); Hubert Jones Jr., 57 ECAB 467, 472-73 (2006); Herbert C. Holley, 33 

ECAB 140 (1981). 
3

ANALYSIS 

Appellant’s January 1, 2014 hearing request is date stamped as having been received on 

February 4, 2014. The hearing representative noted that the request was postmarked January 30, 

2014; which is more than 30 days after OWCP’s December 23, 2013 decision. However, the 

imaged copy of the envelope does not have a legible postmark date. Where the postmark is not 

legible, the hearing request will be deemed timely unless OWCP has kept evidence of date of 

delivery on the record reflecting that the request is untimely.9 As noted, the appeal request form 

is date stamped as having been received on February 4, 2014. Accordingly, the evidence 

regarding date of delivery reflects that appellant’s request is untimely. Therefore, appellant was 

not entitled to a hearing as a matter of right. The Branch of Hearings and Review also denied her 

request on the basis that her claim for wage-loss compensation could be addressed by requesting 

reconsideration before OWCP. The Board finds that the hearing representative properly 

exercised her discretionary authority in denying her request for a hearing.10

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that the Branch of Hearings and Review properly denied appellant’s 

hearing request. 

 9

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

2.1601.4a (October 2011). Where the hearing request is mailed directly to the Branch of Hearings and Review, the 

request will be date stamped, and both the envelope and request will be scanned into the case file. Id. at Chapter 

2.1601.3a. 

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

deductions from known facts. See André Thyratron, 54 ECAB 257, 261 (2002). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 8, 2014 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 5, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board