United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.F., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Pittsburgh, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-128 

Issued: March 18, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 23, 2013 appellant filed a timely appeal of the September 5, 2013 nonmerit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) finding that he had 

abandoned his request for an oral hearing. OWCP issued its last merit decision on 

March 11, 2013. As more than 180 days elapsed between that merit decision and the October 23, 

2013 filing of this appeal, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of appellant’s claim 

pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, but has jurisdiction over the nonmerit decision. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned his hearing 

request. 

On appeal, appellant contends that he never received any correspondence concerning a 

telephone hearing. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 4, 2012 appellant, then a 56-year-old carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

alleging that he suffered injuries when he tripped off a curb, fell on buttocks and then hit the 

backside of his head after being chased by a dog. On October 19, 2012 OWCP accepted 

appellant’s claim for sprain of the right lumbar region of the back; contusion of scalp; 

concussion with loss of consciousness of 30 minutes or less; sprain of the neck; and sprain of the 

thoracic region of the back. By decision dated March 11, 2013, it terminated appellant’s medical 

and wage-loss benefits for the reason that he no longer had any disability or residuals from his 

accepted employment-related condition. 

On April 2, 2013 appellant requested a telephonic hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative. By notice dated June 25, 2013, OWCP informed him of his hearing date set for 

August 2, 2013 at 9:30 am. It provided the telephone number of the hearing representative and a 

passcode. The notice was mailed to appellant at his address of record. The record reflects that 

he did not call in for the hearing on August 2, 2013. 

By decision dated September 5, 2013, an OWCP hearing representative found that 

appellant had abandoned his request for a hearing. He found that appellant did not call in for the 

scheduled August 2, 2013 hearing and did not contact OWCP within 10 days before or after the 

hearing to explain this failure. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

A claimant who has received a final adverse decision by OWCP may obtain a hearing by 

writing the address specified in the decision within 30 days of the date of the decision for which 

a hearing is sought.2 Unless otherwise directed in writing by the claimant, OWCP’s 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 schedule date.3 OWCP has the burden of proving that it 

mailed to appellant and his representative a notice of a scheduled hearing.4 

The authority governing abandonment of hearings rests with OWCP’s regulations, which 

provide in pertinent part as follows: 

“A claimant who fails to appear at a scheduled hearing may request in writing 

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

Where good cause for failure to appear is shown, another hearing will be 

scheduled and conducted by teleconference. The failure of the claimant to request 

another hearing within 10 days, or the failure of the claimant to appear at the 

 2

 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a). 

3 Id. at 10.617(b). 

4 See Michelle R. Littlejohn, 42 ECAB 463, 465 (1991); see also K.D., Docket No. 11-77 (issued 

August 18, 2011). 
3

second scheduled hearing without good cause shown, shall constitute 

abandonment of the request for a hearing....”5

ANALYSIS 

By decision dated March 11, 2013, OWCP terminated appellant’s medical and wage-loss 

compensation benefits. Appellant made a timely request for an oral hearing and, by notice dated 

June 25, 2013, OWCP advised him that a telephonic oral hearing was to be held on 

August 2, 2013. It provided a telephone number and passcode. The notice was sent to 

appellant’s address of record.6 

Appellant failed to call the designated number on August 2, 2013. He must provide an 

explanation for his failure to appear within 10 days. There is no evidence of record that 

appellant contacted OWCP within 10 days of August 2, 2013 to explain his failure to call in for 

the scheduled hearing. The evidence establishes that he did not request a postponement of the 

hearing. Additionally, appellant failed to appear at the hearing by calling in and failed to request 

a second hearing. The Board therefore finds that he abandoned his request for a hearing in this 

case. 

On appeal, appellant contended that he never received the notice of the hearing. The 

Board notes that the June 25, 2013 notice of hearing was properly addressed and mailed to 

appellant at his address of record. A notice properly addressed and duly mailed to an individual 

in the ordinary course of business is presumed to have been received by that individual.7

 

Accordingly, the Board finds that appellant was properly notified of the hearing. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned his hearing 

request. 

 5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.622(f); see also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Hearings and Review of 

the Written Record, Chapter 2.1601.6(g) (October 2011). 

6

 Absent evidence to the contrary, a letter properly addressed and mailed in the ordinary course of business is 

presumed to have been received. See James A. Gray, 54 ECAB 277 (2002); see also K.R., Docket No. 13-1412 

(issued December 11, 2013). 

7 J.R. ̧ Docket No. 13-313 (issued August 15, 2013); Newton D. Lashmett, 45 ECAB 181 (1993) (mailbox rule). 
4

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated September 5, 2013 is affirmed. 

Issued: March 18, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board