United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.K., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU 

OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Portland, OR, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1822 

Issued: November 24, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 4, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of an August 4, 2015 nonmerit 

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

has elapsed since the last merit decision on November 19, 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant abandoned her request for a hearing before an OWCP 

hearing representative. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

The case has previously been before the Board. Appellant filed a Form CA-2 

occupational disease claim on July 14, 2010 alleging that she sustained an emotional condition as 

a result of her federal employment as a computer support worker. OWCP denied the claim by 

decision dated November 4, 2010. On November 29, 2010 appellant advised OWCP of an 

address change from Portland, Oregon to Las Vegas, Nevada. In an order dated December 12, 

2011, the Board remanded the case to OWCP for a proper decision.2 The Board found that 

OWCP had not made adequate explanation for its findings as to the compensability of alleged 

work factors, and also noted that OWCP had not addressed some of the allegations. 

By decision dated November 4, 2014, OWCP again denied the claim, finding that as 

appellant had not established compensable work factors, she did not sustain an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty. The decision was mailed to appellant at a Portland, 

Oregon address. On November 19, 2014 OWCP reissued the decision to the last known address 

in Las Vegas, NV. 

In a letter postmarked November 24, 2014, and received on December 2, 2014, appellant 

requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing representative. By letter dated December 2, 

2014, addressed to appellant’s last known address in Las Vegas, NV, the Branch of Hearings and 

Review acknowledged receipt of appellant’s request for an oral hearing. Appellant was advised 

that if the case was in posture for hearing, she could expect the case to appear on a hearing 

docket within six to eight months. 

The record contains a memorandum of telephone call (Form CA-110) dated April 13, 

2015, indicating that appellant had inquired as to the status of her hearing request. Appellant 

stated that she had not received any communication from OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and 

Review. A Form CA-110 dated April 14, 2015 indicated that appellant was advised that the case 

had not yet been assigned to a hearing representative or placed on the hearing docket. OWCP 

confirmed that appellant’s last known address remained correct. The record contains a Form 

CA-110 dated April 24, 2015 indicating that appellant had spoken to the Branch of Hearings and 

Review, but she asserted they were not helpful regarding a hearing date. 

By letter dated June 10, 2015, mailed to appellant’s last known address, appellant was 

advised that a hearing was scheduled for July 15, 2015 at 3:45 p.m. OWCP indicated that the 

hearing would be conducted by telephone conference and appellant was provided a telephone 

number and pass code. The record contains no further communication from appellant. 

By decision dated August 4, 2015, an OWCP hearing representative determined that 

appellant had abandoned her request for a hearing. He indicated that appellant had not contacted 

OWCP either prior to or following the scheduled hearing on July 15, 2015. 

 2

 Docket No. 11-937 (issued December 12, 2011). 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

A claimant who has received a final adverse decision by OWCP may obtain a hearing by 

writing to the address specified in the decision within 30 days of the date of the decision for 

which a hearing is sought.3 Unless otherwise directed in writing by the claimant, OWCP’s 

hearing representative will mail a notice of the time and place of the hearing to the claimant and 

any representative at least 30 days before the scheduled date.4

 

OWCP procedures provide that a claimant who fails to appear at a scheduled hearing may 

request in writing within 10 days after the date set for the hearing that another hearing be 

scheduled. Where good cause for failure to appear is shown, another hearing will be scheduled 

and conducted by teleconference.5 The failure of the claimant to request another hearing within 

10 days, or the failure of the claimant to appear at the second scheduled hearing without good 

cause shown, shall constitute abandonment of the request for a hearing.6 Where it has been 

determined that a claimant has abandoned his or her right to a hearing, OWCP’s Branch of 

Hearings and Review will issue a formal decision finding that the claimant has abandoned his or 

her request for a hearing.7 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant timely requested a hearing before an OWCP hearing representative with 

respect to the November 19, 2014 OWCP decision denying her claim for compensation. He was 

notified by letter dated June 10, 2015 addressed to her last known address, that a hearing was 

scheduled for July 15, 2015. It is well established that, in the absence of evidence to the 

contrary, it is presumed that a notice mailed to an addressee in the ordinary course of business 

was received by the addressee.8

 

The record indicates that appellant did not participate in the scheduled telephone hearing 

or contact OWCP prior to the scheduled hearing. In addition, appellant did not request, within 

10 days of the scheduled hearing, that another hearing be scheduled.9 Under these 

circumstances, OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned her request for a hearing.10

 

 3 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a). 

 4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.617(b). 

5

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Hearings and Reviews of the Written Record, Chapter 

2.1601.6(g) (October 2011). 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 

8 See Larry L. Hill, 42 ECAB 596, 600 (1991). 

9 Supra note 6. 

10 See C.C., Docket No. 15-0007 (issued September 17, 2015). 
4

On appeal appellant asserts that she was “out of town” in June and July 2015 and did not 

receive notice of the scheduled hearing. The Board notes that notice of the hearing is mailed to a 

claimant “unless otherwise directed in writing by the claimant.”11 Appellant had an opportunity 

to notify OWCP of her absence and provide an appropriate address or method of communicating 

the notice of the scheduled hearing. There is no indication that appellant contacted OWCP in 

this regard. Based on the evidence of record, OWCP properly found that appellant abandoned 

her hearing request in this case. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant abandoned her request for a hearing before an OWCP 

hearing representative. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated August 4, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: November 24, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 11 Supra note 4.