United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

N.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Worcester, MA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-1110 

Issued: September 6, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

William Bothwell, 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 April 27, 2017 appellant, through a representative, filed a timely appeal from an 

April 6, 2017 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), which found 

that his reconsideration request was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of 

error. The appeal was docketed as Docket No. 17-1110. 

OWCP initially denied appellant’s occupational disease claim on January 21, 2015. On 

December 16, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration. By decision dated January 26, 2016, 

OWCP denied appellant’s claim as it found that appellant had failed to establish causal 

relationship. Appellant requested reconsideration in a letter received on January 26, 2017. In its 

April 6, 2017 decision, OWCP found that the reconsideration request was untimely filed and 

failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. 

 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

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 provides 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 computing the time for requesting reconsideration, the one-year 

period begins on the next day after the date of the original contested decision.3

 The last day of 

the period shall be included unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday.4 Thus, the 

reconsideration request was timely filed, as it was received by OWCP on January 26, 2017, 

within one year of the last merit decision. 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.5 The clear evidence of error standard utilized by OWCP in its 

April 6, 2017 decision is appropriate only for untimely reconsideration requests. After such 

further development as OWCP deems necessary, it should issue an appropriate decision to 

protect appellant’s appeal rights. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 6, 2017 decision is set aside and the case 

is remanded for further action consistent with this order of the Board. 

Issued: September 6, 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 

 2

 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a). 

3

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 (February 2016). 

4 Id. See also Debra McDavid, 57 ECAB 149 (2005); John B. Montoya, 43 ECAB 1148 (1992). 

5 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b).