United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Palmyra, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1105 

Issued: October 25, 2016 

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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 4, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal of an April 13, 2016 nonmerit decision of 

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

the last merit decision dated October 13, 2015 to the fining 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 the claim. 

ISSUE 

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

record as untimely filed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8124. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 14, 2015 appellant, then a 46-year-old rural carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging a right wrist condition in the performance of duty on or before 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

July 8, 2015. She attributed the condition to repetitive upper extremity motions while sorting 

and delivering mail. Appellant did not stop work at the time she filed her claim. 

Dr. Andrew Ritting, an attending Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed right 

basilar joint synovitis on July 21, 2015. He attributed the condition to repetitive or excessive 

upper extremity use at work. 

In an August 14, 2015 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the additional medical and 

factual evidence needed to establish her claim, including a complete history of how and when the 

condition developed, a detailed description of the work factors claimed to have caused or 

contributed to the right wrist condition, and a medical report from her attending physician 

explaining how and why those duties would cause the condition. It afforded appellant 30 days to 

submit such evidence. 

In response, appellant submitted a September 3, 2015 report from Dr. Ritting, noting that 

appellant continued to experience right thumb pain at work. Dr. Ritting diagnosed osteoarthrosis 

of the right thumb. He recommended a brace and medication. 

By decision dated October 13, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that fact of 

injury had not been established. It found that appellant had failed to provide a complete history 

of the condition, or a sufficiently detailed description of her work duties. 

In a letter dated March 29, 2016 and received by OWCP on March 31, 2016, appellant 

requested a review of the written record by a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and 

Review. She submitted her March 23, 2016 statement describing the onset of symptoms in 

May 2015. Appellant described her duties of rolling loaded mail carts weighing 100 to 200 

pounds, distributing flats and parcels weighing up to 70 pounds, scanning hundreds of barcodes a 

day using a handheld scanner, casing delivery routes, fingering and crimping mail into a “U” 

shape to insert in delivery boxes. Appellant asserted that she had no outside activities other than 

normal household chores, such as washing dishes and doing laundry. 

Appellant also provided November 5, 2015 and March 24, 2016 reports from Dr. Ritting 

diagnosing primary osteoarthritis of the first metacarpophalangeal joint. Dr. Ritting 

administered injections. He commented that there was a “causal relationship between her 

symptoms and her repetitive use of her thumb at work” including “rolling mail containers, 

distributing mail containers, sorting letters and flats by hand, and repetitive gripping of mail.” 

By decision dated April 13, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s request for a review of the 

written record, finding that her March 29, 2016 request was not timely filed within 30 days of 

OWCP’s October 13, 2015 decision.2

 It exercised its discretion and further denied the request as 

the issue in the case could be equally well addressed by submitting new, relevant evidence or 

argument accompanying a request for reconsideration. 

 2

 As the postmark of appellant’s hearing request was not legible in the case record, OWCP utilized the date of the 

letter, March 29, 2016, as the date of her hearing request. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8124(b)(1) of FECA, concerning a claimant’s entitlement to a hearing before an 

OWCP hearing representative, states: Before review under section 8128(a) of this title, 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.3 A hearing is a 

review of an adverse decision by an OWCP hearing representative. Initially, the 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.4

 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.5

 A claimant is not 

entitled to a hearing or a review of the written record if the request is not made within 30 days of 

the date of the decision. 

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

of FECA,6

 has the power to hold hearings in certain circumstances where no legal provision was 

made for such hearings and that OWCP must exercise this discretionary authority in deciding 

whether to grant a hearing.7 OWCP procedures, which require OWCP to exercise its discretion 

to grant or deny a hearing when the request is untimely or made after reconsideration, are a 

proper interpretation of FECA and Board precedent.8

 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant claimed that she sustained a right wrist condition in the performance of duty. 

OWCP denied the claim by decision issued October 13, 2015, finding that fact of injury had not 

been established. Appellant requested an oral hearing on March 29, 2016. Her request was 

made more than 30 days after OWCP’s October 13, 2015 merit decision. The time limitation to 

request an oral hearing from OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review expired on November 12, 

2015, 30 days after the October 13, 2015 decision.9 Therefore, OWCP properly found in its 

April 13, 2016 decision that appellant had not timely requested an oral hearing as a matter of 

right because her request was not made within 30 days of its decision.10 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.615. 

5 James Smith, 53 ECAB 188 (2001); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a). 

6 Supra note 1. 

7 Marilyn F. Wilson, 52 ECAB 347 (2001); ); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(b). 

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

9 T.T., Docket No. 15-1397 (issued December 3, 2015). 

10 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Hearings and Reviews of the Written Record, Chapter 

2.1601.4(a) (October 2011). 
4

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

and had denied appellant’s request for a review of the written record because the issue of fact of 

injury could be addressed through a request for reconsideration.11 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.12 In this 

case, the evidence of record does not support that OWCP abused its discretion in its denial of 

appellant’s request for review of the written record. Accordingly, the Board finds that OWCP 

properly denied her request.13 

On appeal appellant contends that she was unaware of the 30-day time limitation for 

requesting a review of the written record. The Board notes, however, that the 30-day time 

limitation is clearly described in the appeal rights which accompanied OWCP’s October 13, 

2015 decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for a review of the 

written record as untimely filed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8124. 

 11 M.H., Docket No. 15-0774 (issued June 19, 2015). 

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

13 D.P., Docket No. 14-308 (issued April 21, 2014); D.J., Docket No. 12-1332 (issued June 21, 2013). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 13, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 25, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board