United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.V., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MANKATO 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Mankato, MN, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1145 

Issued: September 8, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 24, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a December 19, 2014 nonmerit 

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

has elapsed from the last merit decision, dated December 13, 2013, and the filing of this appeal, 

pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

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

Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of the claim. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for a review of the 

written record as untimely filed. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 28, 2008 appellant, then a 53-year-old mail processing clerk, filed an 

occupational disease alleging that he had developed left carpal tunnel syndrome removing rubber 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

bands from bundles of mail in the performance of duty. Appellant’s attending physician, 

Dr. Edwin D. Harrington, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed moderate carpal 

tunnel syndrome in the left arm. Appellant underwent electrodiagnostic testing which indicated 

moderate right median nerve mononeuropathy at the wrist or carpal tunnel syndrome. By 

decision dated December 10, 2008, OWCP accepted his claim for left carpal tunnel syndrome. 

Dr. Harrington performed appellant’s left carpal tunnel release on January 26, 2009. Appellant 

returned to light-duty work on March 3, 2009 and full duty on April 10, 2009. 

On February 19, 2010 Dr. Harrington diagnosed left wrist osteoarthritis. He referred 

appellant to a rheumatologist on November 24, 2010. Dr. Harrington examined appellant on 

April 27, 2011 and found swelling over the left wrist extensors. He diagnosed intersection 

syndrome left wrist consistent with tendinitis. Appellant reported left wrist pain on July 15, 

2011 and Dr. Harrington provided work restrictions. Appellant underwent a magnetic resonance 

imaging (MRI) scan which demonstrated a degenerative tear within the scapholunate ligament, 

advanced left wrist arthropathy, and flexor carpal radialis tenosynovitis with multiple ganglia 

type cysts. On August 5, 2011 Dr. Harrington diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome on the left and 

left wrist arthritis. 

Dr. Steven L. Moran, a Board-certified plastic and hand surgeon, examined appellant on 

September 19, 2011 and diagnosed Kienbock’s disease with a large cyst in the right wrist and 

grade 1 scaphoid lunate advanced collapse arthritis on the left. Appellant underwent right wrist 

four corner fusion on October 10, 2012. He returned to work on January 21, 2013 following this 

procedure. 

Appellant filed a claim for a recurrence of disability on April 4, 2013 alleging on 

March 20, 2013 he became disabled as a result of his October 15, 2008 employment injury. He 

stated that following his return to work on January 21, 2013 he developed left wrist pain 

radiating to his fingers. Appellant stated that he experienced swelling in the fingers of his left 

hand and his physician found he was disabled. Dr. Moran submitted a report dated March 21, 

2013 diagnosed episodic synovitis over the metacarpal phalangeal (MCP) joints. He 

recommended left wrist surgical fusion. 

In a letter dated October 2, 2013, OWCP requested additional factual and medical 

evidence in support of appellant’s alleged recurrence of disability. Appellant responded and 

stated that he was using his left wrist more due to his right wrist pain. He listed his employment 

duties as lifting, sweeping, and carrying mail. Appellant stated that he believed that he was 

compensating for his right wrist condition. He stated that he returned to work four hours a day 

on April 1 through September 2, 2013. 

By decision dated December 13, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for recurrence of 

disability finding that he failed to submit the necessary medical opinion evidence to establish a 

spontaneous change in his employment-related left wrist condition resulting in disability for 

work. 

Appellant requested a review of the written record and reconsideration via a form dated 

October 10, 2014 and received by OWCP on November 4, 2014. The form was postmarked 

October 31, 2014. 
3

By decision dated December 19, 2014, the OWCP Branch of Hearings and Review 

denied appellant’s request for a review of the written record as a matter of right, finding his 

October 31, 2014 request was made more than 30 days after the December 13, 2013 OWCP 

decision. The Branch of Hearings and Review further considered his case and determined that 

the issue in the case could equally well be addressed by requesting reconsideration from OWCP 

and submitting evidence not previously considered which established that he had sustained a 

recurrence of disability.2

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8124(b)(1) of FECA provides that before review under section 8128(a) of this 

title, a claimant for compensation not satisfied with a decision of the Secretary 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.3

 Section 10.615 of the federal regulations 

implementing this section of FECA provides that a claimant shall be afforded a choice of an oral 

hearing or a review of the written record.4

 OWCP regulations provide that the request must be 

sent within 30 days of the date of the decision for which a hearing is sought and also that the 

claimant must not have previously submitted a reconsideration request (whether or not it was 

granted) on the same decision.5 

The Board has held that OWCP, in its broad discretionary authority in the administration 

of FECA,6 has the power to hold hearings and reviews of the written record in certain 

circumstances where no legal provision was made for such reviews and that OWCP must 

exercise this discretionary authority in deciding whether to grant a hearing or review of the 

written record.7 OWCP procedures, which require OWCP to exercise its discretion to grant or 

deny a hearing or review of the written record when the request is untimely or made after 

reconsideration, are a proper interpretation of FECA and Board precedent.8 

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, appellant requested review of the written record on October 31, 2014. 

His request was made more than 30 days after the date of issuance of OWCP’s December 13, 

2013 merit decision. Therefore, OWCP properly found in its December 19, 2014 decision that 

appellant was not entitled to an oral hearing or examination of the written record as a matter of 

right because his request was not made within 30 days of its December 13, 2013 decision. 

 2

 The Board notes that appellant also requested reconsideration from OWCP on November 4, 2014. Upon return 

of the case record, OWCP should address this timely request for reconsideration. 

3

 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.615. 

5 Id. at § 10.616(a). 

6

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

7 Marilyn F. Wilson, 52 ECAB 347 (2001). 

8 Teresa M. Valle, 57 ECAB 542 (2006). 
4

OWCP then properly exercised its discretion by stating that it had considered the matter 

and had denied appellant’s request for an examination of the written record because the issue of 

recurrence of disability could be addressed through the reconsideration application. The Board 

has held that the only limitation on OWCP’s authority is reasonableness and an 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 deduction from 

established facts.9

 In this case, the evidence of record does not indicate that OWCP abused its 

discretion in its denial of appellant’s request for a review of the written record. Accordingly, the 

Board finds that OWCP properly denied his request. 

CONCLUSION 

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

appellant’s request for a review of the written record on the grounds that the request was 

untimely and could be addressed through the reconsideration process. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 19, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 8, 2015 

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 Daniel J. Perea, 42 ECAB 214, 221 (1990).