United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.S., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION, 

Newark, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-156 

Issued: February 15, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Aaron Aumiller, Esq., 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 

On October 31, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a May 9, 

2016 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, which found that her 

reconsideration request was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. The 

appeal was docketed as No. 17-156. 

OWCP initially denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim on June 18, 2013. Appellant, 

through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing, after which an OWCP hearing representative 

issued a February 18, 2014 decision that affirmed the June 18, 2013 decision. She, through 

counsel, requested reconsideration on February 18, 2015. OWCP reviewed the merits of 

appellant’s case in a decision dated April 30, 2015, and affirmed its decision of 

February 18, 2014. 

 1

 In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An 

attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject 

to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation. 
2

By letter dated May 2, 2016, received by OWCP on the same date, appellant, through 

counsel, requested reconsideration of OWCP’s April 30, 2015 decision. By decision dated 

May 9, 2016, OWCP found that the request was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear 

evidence of error. 

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that appellant’s request for 

reconsideration was timely. 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.2

 In this case, appellant sought review of the April 30, 2015 decision 

and her request for reconsideration was received on Monday, May 2, 2016. In computing the 

time for requesting reconsideration, the date of the event from which the designated time period 

begins to run shall not be included when computing the time period. However, the last day of 

the period shall be included unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday or a legal holiday.3 Thus, the time 

for requesting reconsideration of OWCP’s April 30, 2015 decision began to run on May 1, 2015, 

and ended on Monday, May 2, 2016, because April 30, 2016 was a Saturday and May 1, 2016 

was a Sunday. As such, the reconsideration request was timely filed, as it was received on the 

first business day following April 30, 2016. 

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.4 The 

clear evidence of error standard utilized by OWCP in its May 9, 2016 decision is appropriate 

only for untimely reconsideration requests. After such further development as OWCP deems 

necessary, it should issue an appropriate decision. 

 

 2 Id. at § 10.607(a). 

3 Debra McDavid, 57 ECAB 149 (2005); John B. Montoya, 43 ECAB 1148 (1992). 

4 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b). 
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 9, 2016 decision is set aside and the case 

remanded for further action consistent with this order. 

Issued: February 15, 2017 

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