United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

E.H., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Grantville, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0400 

Issued: April 18, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On December 29, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 7, 2015 nonmerit 

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

has elapsed from the last merit decision dated June 18, 2014, and 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 to review the merits of the claim. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly determined that appellant’s request for 

reconsideration was untimely filed and failed to establish clear evidence of error. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 22, 2014 appellant, then a 51-year-old letter carrier and clerk, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed degenerative disc disease as 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

a result of performing her carrier duties. She became aware of her condition and realized that it 

was causally related to her employment on December 15, 2003. Appellant did not stop work. 

By letter dated May 2, 2014, OWCP advised appellant of the type of factual and medical 

evidence needed to establish her claim and requested that she submit such evidence, particularly 

requesting that she submit a physician’s reasoned opinion addressing the relationship of her 

claimed condition and specific employment factors. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. James G. Lindley, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, on 

November 5, 2013, for an injury sustained in 2003. Dr. Lindley reported low back pain, left leg 

pain, and paresthesia. He noted a recent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan revealed 

degenerative discs at L4-5 and L5-S1, a disc bulge at L4-5, and lumbar sacral radiculitis. 

Dr. Lindley noted that appellant could not perform the letter carrier position due to the extensive 

walking and carrying mail required and recommended appellant work a light-duty position such 

as a window clerk. 

In a decision dated June 18, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as the medical 

evidence did not support that she had a medical condition causally related to the accepted factors 

of her employment. 

In an appeal form dated June 15, 2015, and received on June 23, 2015, appellant 

requested reconsideration. She submitted a statement dated June 15, 2015 and asserted that she 

submitted sufficient medical evidence including reports from Dr. Lindley and another MRI scan 

report which support that her condition was causally related to carrying mail. Appellant 

indicated that Dr. Lindley recommended she be given a light-duty window position that she 

could perform for eight hours a day. She indicated that Dr. Lindley has provided OWCP all the 

necessary paperwork to establish that her condition is causally related to carrying mail and he 

would not continue to submit additional reports. Appellant requested that OWCP review the 

medical evidence from Dr. Lindley, which supported that carrying mail caused her injury, and 

approve her claim. 

By decision dated July 7, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration as 

it was untimely and failed to establish clear evidence of error. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Pursuant to section 8128(a) of FECA, OWCP has the discretion to reopen a case for 

further merit review.2

 This discretionary authority, however, is subject to certain restrictions. 

For instance, a request for reconsideration must be received within one year of the date of the 

OWCP decision for which review is sought.3

 Imposition of this one-year filing limitation does 

not constitute an abuse of discretion.4

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); Y.S., Docket No. 08-440 (issued March 16, 2009). 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a). 

4 E.R., Docket No. 09-599 (issued June 3, 2009); Leon D. Faidley, Jr., 41 ECAB 104 (1989). 
3

 OWCP may not deny a reconsideration request solely because it was untimely filed. 

When a claimant’s application for review is untimely filed, it must nevertheless undertake a 

limited review to determine whether it establishes clear evidence of error. If an application 

demonstrates clear evidence of error, OWCP will reopen the case for merit review.5

To establish clear evidence of error, a claimant must submit evidence that is relevant to 

the issue that was decided by OWCP,6

 is positive, precise, and explicit, and manifests on its face 

that OWCP committed an error.7

 The evidence must not only be of sufficient probative value to 

create a conflict in medical opinion or establish a clear procedural error, but must also shift the 

weight of the evidence in favor of the claimant and raise a substantial question as to the 

correctness of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought. Evidence that does not raise a 

substantial question is insufficient to establish clear evidence of error. It is not enough merely to 

show that the evidence could be construed so as to produce a contrary conclusion. A 

determination of whether the claimant has established clear evidence of error entails a limited 

review of how the evidence submitted with the reconsideration request bears on the evidence 

previously of record.8

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant failed to file a timely 

application for review. As noted, an application for reconsideration must be received within one 

year of the date of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.9 As appellant’s request for 

reconsideration was not received by OWCP until June 23, 2015, more than one year after 

issuance of the last merit decision by OWCP on June 18, 2014, it was untimely. Consequently, 

she must establish clear evidence of error by OWCP denying her claim for compensation. 

The Board finds that appellant has not established clear evidence of error on the part of 

OWCP. In a reconsideration request, received on June 23, 2015, she disagreed with OWCP’s 

decision denying her claim for compensation. Appellant asserted that she had submitted 

sufficient medical evidence, including reports from Dr. Lindley and new MRI scan reports, 

which supported that her condition was causally related to carrying mail. She noted that 

Dr. Lindley had recommended she be given a light-duty window position that she could perform 

for eight hours a day. Appellant stated that Dr. Lindley had provided OWCP all the necessary 

paperwork to establish that her condition is causally related to carrying mail. She requested 

OWCP to review the evidence from Dr. Lindley and approve her claim. The Board notes that 

while appellant addressed her disagreement with OWCP’s decision denying her claim for an 

 5 M.L., Docket No. 09-956 (issued April 15, 2010). See also 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); Federal (FECA) Procedure 

Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.3(c) (September 2011) (the term “clear evidence of 

error” is intended to represent a difficult standard). 

6 Dean D. Beets, 43 ECAB 1153 (1992). 

7 Leona N. Travis, 43 ECAB 227 (1991). 

8 J.S., Docket No. 10-385 (issued September 15, 2010); B.W., Docket No. 10-323 (issued September 2, 2010). 

9

 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a). 
4

occupational disease, her general allegations do not establish clear evidence of error as it does 

not raise a substantial question as to the correctness of OWCP’s most recent merit decision 

which denied appellant’s claim for an occupational disease. 

The Board notes that the underlying issue is medical in nature and that on reconsideration 

appellant did not submit additional medical evidence. The Board notes that clear evidence of 

error is intended to represent a difficult standard. The submission of a detailed well-rationalized 

medical report which, if submitted before the denial was issued, would have created a conflict in 

medical opinion requiring further development, is still not sufficient to establish clear evidence 

of error.10 

Therefore OWCP properly found that appellant’s undated statement received on June 23, 

2015 did not establish clear evidence of error. It properly denied appellant’s reconsideration 

request. 

On appeal, appellant asserts that she should not have filed a new Form CA-2, rather her 

injury should have been accepted under claim number xxxxxx955.11 She indicates that because 

OWCP would not approve any further doctors’ appointments she has had to use her own health 

insurance. Appellant further asserts that she timely sent in all document and appeals. However, 

as noted, the Board does not have jurisdiction over the merits of the claim. Appellant has not 

presented evidence or argument that raises a substantial question as to the correctness of 

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant’s request for reconsideration was untimely filed and did 

not establish clear evidence of error. 

 10 D.G., 59 ECAB 455 (2008). 

11 Claim number xxxxxx955 is not before the Board on the present appeal. 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 7, 2015 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: April 18, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board