United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.C., Appellant 

and 

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 

Columbia, SC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1581 

Issued: February 17, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 1, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 12, 2016 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from the last merit decision dated November 3, 2014 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.2

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 Appellant timely requested oral argument pursuant to section 501.5(b) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure. 20 

C.F.R. § 501.5(b). By order dated December 19, 2016, the Board exercised its discretion and denied the request, 

finding that the arguments on appeal could adequately be addressed based on the case record. Order Denying 

Request for Oral Argument, Docket No. 16-1561 (issued December 19, 2016). The Board’s Rules of Procedure

provide that any appeal in which a request for oral argument is not granted by the Board will proceed to a decision 

based on the case record and any pleadings submitted. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). 
2

ISSUE 

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

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

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 15, 1996 appellant, then a 53-year-old asset manager, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained injuries in the performance of her federal 

duties. In an accompanying statement, she alleged that, although she had rheumatoid arthritis 

when she was hired by the employing establishment, she was able to perform her duties without 

limitation until December 1993. Appellant noted that at that time she had prominent joint and 

tissue swelling in her hands, wrists, elbows, knees and feet. She argued that, while her job did 

not cause her rheumatoid arthritis, her job duties had aggravated the condition beyond its normal 

progression. Appellant stated that her job duties increased when the employing establishment 

eliminated certain employees, and she was required to pull her own files, write or type her own 

reports, file materials, and put files together. She contended that performing these additional 

activities had a devastating effect on her health. Appellant noted that she spent 60 percent of her 

time writing. She argued that the level of her responsibilities and the amount of detail required 

in her job caused, which in turn exacerbated her arthritis. 

Appellant’s claim was accepted for unspecified arthropathy, hand, bilateral; pyogenic 

arthritis of hand, bilateral; chondrocalcinosis due to dicalcium phosphate crystals, hand, bilateral; 

rheumatoid arthritis, bilateral; and sicca syndrome. She filed a claim for a schedule award. By 

decision dated October 13, 2006, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 83 percent 

permanent impairment of her right hand and 79 percent permanent impairment of her left hand. 

Appellant later requested an increased schedule award. 

On November 3, 2014 OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an additional schedule award. 

By letter dated January 13, 2015, postmarked January 20, 2015, and received by OWCP 

on February 20, 2015, appellant requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative. On March 17, 2015 OWCP denied appellant’s request for a hearing. It noted that 

appellant’s request was untimely filed. OWCP also considered the request at its discretion, and 

determined that the matter could equally well be addressed by requesting reconsideration and 

submitting new evidence. 

By letter dated March 11, 2016, appellant submitted a letter requesting reconsideration. 

In the letter, she noted that she had asked for an oral hearing in the past, but never received the 

March 17, 2015 decision. By letter dated April 12, 2016, OWCP asked appellant to specify 

which kind of appeal she wished and sent her an appeal request form. 

By form dated April 22, 2016 and received by OWCP on May 11, 2016, appellant again 

requested an oral hearing. 

By decision dated May 12, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing 

before an OWCP hearing representative as untimely filed. It also reviewed appellant’s request at 
3

its discretion, and denied the request as it determined that the issue in the case could be equally 

well addressed by requesting reconsideration and submitting new evidence. 

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 sent, 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, 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.6 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.7

ANALYSIS 

Appellant’s most recent request for an oral hearing was received by OWCP on 

May 11, 2016. Her request was made more than 30 days after the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

most recent merit decision on November 3, 2014. The time limitation to request an oral hearing 

before OWCP expired on December 3, 2014, 30 days after the November 3, 2014 decision.8

 

Therefore, OWCP properly found in its June 13, 2016 decision that appellant was not entitled to 

an oral hearing as a matter of right because her request was not made within 30 days of its 

November 3, 2014 decision.9

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.615. 

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

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

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

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

9

 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Hearing and Review of the Written 

Record, Chapter 2.1601.4(a) (October 2011).
4

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

and had denied appellant’s request for a hearing because the issue of an additional schedule 

award could equally well be addressed through a request for reconsideration.10 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.11 

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

denial of appellant’s request for an oral hearing. Accordingly, the Board finds that OWCP 

properly denied her request.12

On appeal appellant requests that the Board review the schedule award issue. However, 

as explained above, the Board has no jurisdiction to review the merits of the case.13

CONCLUSION 

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

untimely filed under 5 U.S.C. § 8124.14

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

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

12 R.P., Docket No. 16-0554 (issued May 17, 2016). 

13 C.A., Docket No. 16-1442 (issued December 8, 2016). 

14 On appeal, appellant submitted new evidence. The Board cannot review this additional evidence submitted for 

the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c). Appellant may request a schedule award or increased schedule award 

at any time based on evidence of new exposure or medical evidence showing progression of an employment-related 

condition resulting in permanent impairment or increased impairment. R.L., Docket No. 09-1948 (issued June 29, 

2010); B.K., 59 ECAB 228, 229-30 (2007); Candace A. Karkoff, 56 ECAB 622, 625 (2005); Linda T. Brown, 51 

ECAB 115 (1999); Paul R. Reedy, 45 ECAB 488, 490 (1994); see Leonard E. Redway, 28 ECAB 242 (1977). 
5

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated May 12, 2016 is affirmed. 

Issued: February 17, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board