United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.R., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

San Diego, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0750 

Issued: June 28, 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 March 7, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 22, 2015 nonmerit 

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

elapsed since the last merit decision dated June 26, 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request for an 

oral hearing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1). 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

Appellant, a 58-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) for 

benefits on August 18, 2014, alleging that he injured his left knee, left ankle, right wrist, right 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

elbow, and shoulder on September 24, 2012 when he slipped and fell on seeds while walking on 

a sidewalk. On December 4, 2014 OWCP accepted the claim for left knee sprain, right shoulder 

sprain, and right wrist sprain. 

By letter dated February 19, 2015, OWCP advised appellant that requests for 

authorization of medical treatment had been received for left knee endstage osteoarthritis with 

degenerative meniscal tear and cervical radiculitis. It noted, however, that these conditions were 

not accepted as causally related to the August 18, 2014 employment injury. Appellant was 

afforded 30 days to submit medical documentation that his claim should be expanded. 

In a report dated April 30, 2015, Dr. John W. Miles, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, related that he was treating appellant for his left knee condition, but that Dr. Lester 

Deguzman, a family practitioner, was the treating physician for appellant’s cervical condition. 

He explained that appellant had a preexisting left knee condition, but that his medial 

compartment complaints increased substantially since his fall at work. Dr. Miles related that a 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan revealed advanced tricompartmental arthritis and tear of 

the medial meniscus. He concluded that, while appellant did have a preexisting condition, it was 

aggravated by the employment injury. 

In a report dated May 5, 2015, Dr. Deguzman noted diagnoses of neck strain, right 

shoulder strain, left knee contusion, left knee severe osteoarthritis, and left knee degenerative 

meniscal tear. He related that appellant had failed conservative treatment of his neck and right 

shoulder conditions. 

By decision dated June 26, 2015, OWCP denied expansion of appellant’s claim, finding 

that he failed to submit sufficient medical evidence to expand his claim to include additional 

diagnoses of cervical radiculitis and left knee endstage medial compartment osteoarthritis with 

degenerative meniscal tear. 

On October 16, 2015 appellant requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative. 

In a decision dated December 22, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s request for a hearing 

as untimely filed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8124. It informed appellant that his case had been 

considered in relation to the issues involved and that the request was further denied for the 

reason that the issue in this case could be addressed by requesting reconsideration from the 

district office and submitting evidence not previously considered. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8124(b)(1) of FECA provides that 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 claim before a representative of the Secretary.2

 

Section 10.615 of the federal regulations implementing this section of FECA provides that a 

hearing is a review of an adverse decision by an OWCP hearing representative. Initially, the 

 2 Id. at § 8124(b)(1). 
3

claimant can choose between two formats: an oral hearing or a review of the written record. In 

addition to the evidence of record, the claimant may submit new evidence to the hearing 

representative.3

 A request for either an oral hearing or a review of the written record must be 

submitted, in writing, within 30 days of the date of the decision for which the hearing is sought.4

 

A claimant is not entitled to a hearing if the request is not made within 30 days of the date of the 

decision.5

 OWCP has discretion, however, to grant or deny a request that is made after this 30-

day period.6

 In such a case, it will determine whether a discretionary hearing should be granted 

and, if not, will so advise the claimant with reasons.7

While a claimant may not be entitled to a hearing as a matter of right if the request is 

untimely, OWCP has the discretionary authority to grant the request and must properly exercise 

such discretion.8

ANALYSIS 

On October 16, 2015 appellant requested an oral hearing. Because he did not request the 

hearing within 30 days of the June 26, 2015 decision, he was not entitled to a hearing as a matter 

of right under section 8124(b)(1). 

OWCP has the discretionary authority to grant the request and it must exercise such 

discretion. In its December 22, 2015 decision, it properly exercised its discretion by notifying 

appellant that it had considered the matter in relation to the issue involved and that additional 

evidence and argument could be submitted with a request for reconsideration. The Board has 

held that the only limitation on OWCP’s authority is reasonableness. An abuse of discretion is 

generally shown through proof of manifest error, a clearly unreasonable exercise of judgment, or 

actions taken which are contrary to both logic and probable deductions from established facts.9

 

In this case, there is no evidence of record that OWCP abused its discretion by denying 

appellant’s hearing request. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for an oral 

hearing. 

 3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.615. 

4 Id. at § 10.616(a). 

5 James Smith, 53 ECAB 188 (2001). 

6

 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(b). 

7 Supra note 5. 

8 See id.; Cora L. Falcon, 43 ECAB 915 (1992); Mary B. Moss; 40 ECAB 640 (1989); Rudolph Bermann, 26 

ECAB 354 (1975). 

9 See R.P., Docket No. 16-0477 (issued April 18, 2016). 
4

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request 

for an oral hearing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1). 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 22, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs be affirmed. 

Issued: June 28, 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