United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.J., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL 

CENTER, Shreveport, LA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0670 

Issued: July 5, 2016 

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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 22, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal of a January 5, 2016 nonmerit 

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

has elapsed since the last merit decision dated April 21, 2015 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.2

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence with her appeal to the Board. However, the Board

may only review evidence that was in the record at the time OWCP issued its final decision. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1); M.B., Docket No. 09-176 (issued September 23, 2009); J.T., 59 ECAB 293 (2008); G.G., 58 ECAB 

389 (2007); Donald R. Gervasi, 57 ECAB 281 (2005); Rosemary A. Kayes, 54 ECAB 373 (2003). Therefore, the 

Board cannot review this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Dennis E. Maddy, 47 ECAB 259 (1995). 
2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant abandoned a telephonic hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative which was scheduled for December 14, 2015. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 31, 2005 appellant, then a 48-year-old medical support assistant, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she injured her left foot, both 

knees, and lower back when she slipped on a wet floor while getting coffee for a patient. 

OWCP accepted the claim for left foot contusion, left ankle sprain/strain, bilateral knee 

contusion, and back contusion. The claim was subsequently expanded to include left Achilles 

tendinitis and bilateral knee osteoarthritis. OWCP authorized Achilles tendon repair surgery 

which occurred on March 20, 2006; right knee arthroscopic surgery, partial medial and lateral 

meniscectomy, and resection of medial plica with synovectomy, which occurred on February 8, 

2007; left knee arthroscopic surgery and partial lateral and medial meniscectomy with 

synovectomy, which occurred on March 29, 2007; and bilateral arthroscopy with partial medial 

meniscectomy with chondroplasty medial femoral condyle, which was performed on 

August 15, 2013. Appellant was placed on the periodic rolls for temporary duty beginning 

December 16, 2005. She returned to full-duty work on August 14, 2006 and stopped work again 

on January 16, 2007. On May 14, 2007 appellant returned to work as a medical support assistant 

working four hours per day before stopping work on June 13, 2007.3

 

In a letter dated March 21, 2015, appellant requested that OWCP expand acceptance of 

her claim to include lumbar and cervical bulging discs and degenerative back disc. 

By decision dated April 21, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s request to expand her claim 

to include back bulging discs at L4-5 and L5-S1 and degenerative lumbar disc. 

On May 20, 2015 OWCP received appellant’s request for an oral hearing before an 

OWCP hearing representative. 

On November 4, 2015 OWCP notified appellant that a hearing would be held on 

December 14, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). It instructed her to call the 

provided toll-free number a few minutes before the hearing time and enter a pass code when 

prompted. 

 3

 Appellant filed claims for a schedule award (Form CA-7). By decision dated June 24, 2009, OWCP granted 

appellant a schedule award for 15 percent right lower extremity permanent impairment and 7 percent left lower 

extremity permanent impairment. As appellant had previously received a schedule award for 15 percent right lower 

extremity permanent impairment, OWCP determined that she was not entitled to an additional schedule award for 

right lower extremity permanent impairment. By decision dated February 14, 2013, OWCP granted appellant a 

schedule award for an additional 11 percent left lower extremity permanent impairment. On February 24, 2014 it 

granted her a schedule award for an additional two percent left lower extremity permanent impairment and two 

percent right lower extremity permanent impairment. 
3

By decision dated January 5, 2016, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review found that 

appellant abandoned her hearing request. It found that she received written notification of the 

hearing 30 days in advance, but failed to appear. The Branch of Hearings and Review further 

determined that nothing in the record established that appellant contacted, or attempted to contact 

OWCP, either prior to or subsequent to the scheduled hearing to explain her failure to 

participate. It concluded that she had abandoned her hearing request. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Under FECA and its implementing regulations, a claimant who has received a final 

adverse decision by OWCP is entitled to receive a hearing upon writing to the address specified 

in the decision within 30 days of the date of the decision for which a hearing is sought.4

 Unless 

otherwise directed in writing by the claims examiner, an OWCP hearing representative will mail 

a notice of the time and place of the hearing to the claimant and any representative at least 30 

days before the scheduled date.5

 OWCP has the burden of proving that it mailed notice of a 

scheduled hearing to a claimant.6

 

A hearing before the Branch of Hearings and Review can be considered abandoned only 

under very limited circumstances.7 With respect to abandonment of hearing requests, Chapter 

2.1601.6(g) of OWCP’s procedure manual provides in relevant part that failure of the claimant to 

appear at the scheduled hearing, failure to request a postponement, and failure to request in 

writing within 10 days after the date set for the hearing that another hearing be scheduled shall 

constitute abandonment of the request for a hearing. Under these circumstances, the Branch of 

Hearings and Review will issue a formal decision finding that the claimant has abandoned her 

request for a hearing and return the case to the district office.8 

ANALYSIS 

Following OWCP’s April 21, 2015 decision denying her request to expand her claim to 

include additional conditions, appellant requested a telephonic hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative. On November 4, 2015 OWCP notified appellant, by mail, that her hearing was 

scheduled for December 14, 2015 at 11:00 a.m., EST. It provided a toll-free number and a pass 

code to use at the time of the hearing. Appellant did not request a postponement, failed to call in 

at the scheduled hearing, and failed to provide any notification for such failure to OWCP within 

10 of the scheduled date of the hearing 

 4

 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a). 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.617(b). 

6 See R.C., 59 ECAB 521 (2008); Michelle R. Littlejohn, 42 ECAB 463 (1991). 

7 C.T., Docket No. 08-2160 (issued May 7, 2009); Claudia J. Whitten, 52 ECAB 483 (2001). 

8

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

2.1601.6(g) (October 2011). 
4

On appeal, appellant stated that she incorrectly read that OWCP would initiate the 

telephone conference call and she was unsure whether she had provided her landline or cell 

phone number. She related that December is a difficult time for her due to the death of her 

husband on December 31, 2007 and her son on August 6, 2008. As noted above, the Board does 

not have jurisdiction over the merits of appellant’s claim. The only issue on appeal is whether 

she abandoned a telephonic hearing on December 14, 2015. There is no evidence of record that 

appellant requested a postponement or that she informed OWCP within 10 days following the 

scheduled date of the hearing regarding her mistaken belief that OWCP would be calling her on 

the date and time in question. The record substantiates that appellant did not appear at the 

scheduled hearing. The Board therefore finds that appellant abandoned her request for an oral 

hearing.9

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant abandoned her request for an oral hearing before an 

OWCP hearing representative on December 14, 2015. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated January 5, 2016 is affirmed. 

Issued: July 5, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 9 C.H., Docket No. 14-620 (issued June 25, 2014).