United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Denver, CO, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1481 

Issued: September 29, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 30, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 12, 2015 nonmerit decision 

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

from the issuance of OWCP’s most recent merit decision on December 15, 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 to review the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing as 

untimely. 

On appeal, appellant argues the merits of his case. 

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 16, 2014 appellant, a 63-year-old lead sales and services associate, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he sustained a right shoulder strain on 

September 15, 2014 when he hit his shoulder on a door jam between the vestibule and workroom 

floor. 

By decision dated December 15, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that he 

failed to establish fact of injury as the medical evidence failed to establish a diagnosis causally 

related to the employment incident. 

In an appeal request form dated and postmarked March 27, 2015, and received by 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review on March 31, 2015, appellant requested a telephonic 

oral hearing before an OWCP hearing representative. 

By decision dated June 12, 2015, OWCP denied the request for an oral hearing, finding 

that appellant’s request was untimely because it was not made within 30 days of its 

December 15, 2014 decision. OWCP exercised its discretion and determined that the relevant 

issue of the case could be addressed by requesting reconsideration and by offering evidence not 

previously considered by OWCP. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8124(b)(1) of FECA provides: “Before review under section 8128(a) of this title 

[relating to reconsideration], a claimant for compensation not satisfied with a decision of the 

Secretary under subsection (a) of this section is entitled, on request made within 30 days after the 

date of the issuance of the decision, to a hearing on [his] claim before a representative of the 

Secretary.”2 

Section 10.615 of Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations provide: “A hearing is a 

review of an adverse decision by a hearing representative. Initially, the claimant can choose 

between two formats: An oral hearing or a review of the written record.”3

 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.4 OWCP has discretion, however, to grant or 

deny a request that is made after this 30-day period.5

 In such a case, it will determine whether to 

grant a discretionary hearing and, if not, will so advise the claimant with reasons.6 

                                                             2

 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1). 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.615. 

4 Id. at § 10.616. 

5 See G.W., Docket No. 10-782 (issued April 23, 2010). See also Herbert C. Holley, 33 ECAB 140 (1981). 

6 Id. See also Rudolph Bermann, 26 ECAB 354 (1975). 
3

ANALYSIS 

Appellant had 30 calendar days from OWCP’s December 15, 2014 decision, or until 

January 14, 2015, to request an oral hearing. He filed a request for an oral hearing postmarked 

March 27, 2015, which was more than 30 days after OWCP issued its December 15, 2014 

decision. Section 8124(b)(1) sets an unequivocal time limitation for requesting a hearing.7

 

Because the hearing request was not timely filed, appellant was not entitled to an oral hearing as 

a matter of right under section 8124(b)(1) of FECA. 

OWCP retains discretion to grant an oral hearing, even if the request is untimely. In this 

case, it denied appellant’s request because it determined that he could equally well address any 

issues in his case by requesting reconsideration. 

On appeal appellant argues the merits of his case. The Board noted above that it only has 

jurisdiction over OWCP’s June 12, 2015 nonmerit decision which denied his request for an oral 

hearing and therefore is precluded from conducting a merit review. 

CONCLUSION 

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

untimely. 

                                                             7 See William F. Osborne, 46 ECAB 198 (1994). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 12, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 29, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board