United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.D., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, PUGET 

SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD, Bremerton, WA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1152 

Issued: September 4, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 27, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 25, 2015 decision from a 

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

180 days elapsed from October 14, 2014, the date of the most recent OWCP merit decision, and 

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 appellant’s 

claim. 

ISSUE 

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

untimely. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 24, 2014 appellant, then a 54-year-old electrician, filed an occupational disease 

claim alleging a bilateral hearing loss in the performance of duty. 

By letter dated August 1, 2014, OWCP notified appellant that evidence was insufficient 

to establish his claim. Appellant was advised to submit a questionnaire substantiating the factual 

element of his claim. 

Appellant submitted an August 11, 2014 statement describing his employment history. 

He noted that he was still exposed to hazardous noise at work and that he had no hobbies that 

involved exposure to loud noise. 

In an August 7, 2014 statement, the employing establishment advised OWCP of the 

sound level ranges in the areas where appellant worked. It noted that without a description of the 

exact work appellant performed it could not provide meaningful occupational noise exposure 

data for specific equipment, sites, or exposure periodicity. Without detailed information, the 

type of hearing protection used would remain unknown. The employing establishment also 

forwarded to OWCP annual audiograms from its hearing conservation program and a job 

description for appellant’s position. On August 9, 2014 it advised that appellant was in the 

hearing conservation program and that he was still employed. 

By letter dated August 29, 2014, OWCP notified appellant that he needed to provide 

further evidence regarding his employment history. Appellant was instructed to submit a 

statement listing his entire federal and nonfederal employment history including employer, job 

title, and inclusive dates. He was also advised that his claim would be denied if the requested 

information was not received in 30 days. 

By decision dated October 14, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for failure to 

establish that the claimed events occurred. 

On December 22, 2014 appellant requested an oral telephone hearing. 

In a March 25, 2015 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing as 

untimely. It indicated that his letter of December 22, 2014 was beyond the 30-day time 

limitation to request an oral hearing and that the relevant issue of the case could be addressed by 

requesting reconsideration and submitting 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 or her claim before a representative of the 

Secretary.”2

 

 2 Id. at § 8124(b)(1). 
3

Section 10.615 of Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides that 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

 

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant’s December 22, 2014 

request for a hearing was not timely filed. Appellant’s request was made more than 30 days after 

the issuance of the October 14, 2014 decision. Section 8124(b)(1) is unequivocal on the time 

limitation for requesting a hearing.7 For this reason, OWCP properly denied his hearing as a 

matter of right. 

OWCP properly exercised its discretion under Board precedent to determine whether to 

grant a hearing in this case. It denied appellant’s request on the grounds that he could equally 

well address any issues in his case by submitting evidence not previously considered by OWCP 

and requesting reconsideration. OWCP correctly employed its discretionary authority and the 

Board finds that OWCP did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s hearing request.8

On appeal appellant argues that he was exposed to loud noise at work and that he 

provided a full work history. The Board only has jurisdiction over the March 25, 2015 nonmerit 

decision which denied his request for an oral hearing. 

CONCLUSION 

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

untimely. 

 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). 

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

8 See Lawrence C. Parr, 48 ECAB 445 (1997). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 25, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 4, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board