United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

P.P., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL 

FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND 

CENTERS, Dahlgren, VA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0901 

Issued: August 11, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Toby Rubenstein, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 29, 2016 appellant, through his representative, filed a timely appeal from an 

October 23, 2015 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

(OWCP), which found that his request for reconsideration was untimely filed and failed to 

present clear evidence of error. The appeal was docketed as No. 16-0901. 

This case was previously on appeal. In an August 8, 2012 merit decision, the Board 

found that appellant had not filed a timely claim for compensation and therefore, his claim was 

barred by the applicable time limitation provisions of FECA.2

 In a July 21, 2013 letter, received 

by OWCP on August 2, 2013, appellant requested that OWCP review his claim and submitted 

arguments in support of his request. He indicated that this was “an appeal back to you on the 

USDOL, Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB) Decision and Order on above 

                                                             1

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge, participated in the original decision but was no longer a member of the 

Board effective November 16, 2015. 

2

 Docket No. 12-272 (issued August 8, 2012). 
2

docket issued on August 8, 2012.” In a July 25, 2015 letter, appellant’s representative requested 

reconsideration. By decision dated October 23, 2015, OWCP denied his reconsideration request 

on the grounds that it was untimely filed and failed to present clear evidence of error on the part 

of OWCP. 

The Board finds that appellant’s July 21, 2013 letter, received August 2, 2013, was a 

timely request for reconsideration. Although the letter did not use the word reconsideration, 

appellant stated that he wanted OWCP to “review” his claim and he provided several arguments 

to support his assertion that his claim was valid.3

 Section 10.607(a) of the implementing 

regulations provide that an application for reconsideration must be received within one year of 

the date of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.4

The Board notes that the last merit decision was the Board’s August 8, 2012 decision5

and appellant’s request for reconsideration was received by OWCP on August 2, 2013. As the 

request was received within one year of the August 8, 2012 decision, it was timely filed. 

Because appellant filed a timely reconsideration request, the case will be remanded to 

OWCP for application of the standard for reviewing timely requests for reconsideration.6 The 

“clear evidence of error” standard utilized by OWCP in its October 23, 2015 decision is 

appropriate only for untimely reconsideration requests. After such further development as the 

OWCP deems necessary, it should issue an appropriate decision. 

                                                             3

 While no special form is required, a reconsideration request must be in writing, identify the decision and 

specific issue(s) for which reconsideration is being requested, and be accompanied by relevant and pertinent new 

evidence or argument not previously considered. The application need not contain the word reconsideration. Gladys 

Mercado, 52 ECAB 255 (2001); Vincente P. Taimanglo, 45 ECAB 504 (1994); D.W., Docket No. 12-1226 (issued 

November 26, 2012). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a). 

5

 OWCP procedures provide that a right to reconsideration within one year accompanies any merit decision of the 

Board. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4(a) 

(February 2016). 

6 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 23, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and remanded for further action consistent with 

this order of the Board. 

Issued: August 11, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board