United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Douglasville, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1823 

Issued: March 3, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 15, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 9, 2016 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from the last merit decision dated October 29, 2015, 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 to review the merits of appellant’s claim. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for review of the written 

record as untimely filed under 5 U.S.C. § 8124 (b). 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 12, 2015 appellant, then a 47-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1). She claimed that on September 11, 2015, she had sustained an injury to her 

lower back when a tree branch shattered the windshield of her vehicle. Appellant stopped work 

on September 12, 2015. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

By decision dated October 29, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she 

had failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish a causal relationship between her claimed 

condition and the employment incident of September 11, 2015. 

By letter dated December 6, 2015, received by OWCP on December 14, 2015, appellant 

requested a review of the written record before a representative of the Branch of Hearings and 

Review. The request was postmarked December 10, 2015. With her request, appellant included 

several reports and notes from physicians regarding her ability to work and work restrictions. 

By decision dated May 9, 2016, a hearing representative denied appellant’s request for a 

review of the written record as it was untimely filed. OWCP’s hearing representative noted that 

OWCP had issued its decision on October 29, 2015, while appellant’s hearing request was 

postmarked December 10, 2015. Consequently, the hearing representative found that appellant 

was not entitled to a review of the written record as a matter of right, as the request was 

submitted more than 30 days after OWCP’s decision. The hearing representative also considered 

whether to grant appellant a discretionary hearing, but determined that the issue in appellant’s 

case could equally well be addressed by her requesting reconsideration before OWCP. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8124(b)(1) of FECA provides: “Before review under section 8128(a) of this title 

[relating to reconsideration], a claimant for compensation not satisfied with a decision of the 

Secretary under subsection (a) of this section is entitled, on request made within 30 days after the 

date of the issuance of the decision, to a hearing on his claim before a representative of the 

Secretary.”2

Section 10.615 of Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides that a hearing is a 

review of an adverse decision by a hearing representative. Initially, the claimant can choose 

between two formats: an oral hearing or a review of the written record.3 The hearing request 

must be sent within 30 days (as determined by postmark or other carrier’s date marking) of the 

date of the decision for which a hearing is sought.4 OWCP has discretion, however, to grant or 

deny a request that is made after this 30-day period.5 In such a case, it will determine whether to 

grant a discretionary hearing or review of the written record and, if not, will so advise the 

claimant with reasons.6

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant’s December 6, 2015 request for a review of the written 

record was postmarked as having been sent on December 10, 2015. OWCP issued its last merit 

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1). 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.615. 

4 Id. at § 10.616. 

5 See G.W., Docket No. 10-782 (issued April 23, 2010). See also Herbert C. Holley, 33 ECAB 140 (1981). 

6 Id. See also Rudolph Bermann, 26 ECAB 354 (1975). 
3

decision on October 29, 2015. The regulations provide that “[t]he hearing request must be sent 

within 30 days ... of the date of the decision for which a hearing is sought.”7

 Appellant’s request 

was postmarked December 10, 2015 and therefore it was untimely. Thus, she was not entitled to 

a review of the written record as a matter of right. 

The Branch of Hearings and Review’s hearing representative also denied appellant’s 

request because it found that the issue of causal relationship in her claim could be equally welladdressed by requesting reconsideration before OWCP. The Board finds that the hearing 

representative properly exercised his discretionary authority in denying appellant’s request for a 

hearing.8 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for review of the written 

record as untimely filed under 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b). 

 7

 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a). 

8 Mary B. Moss, 40 ECAB 640, 647 (1989). Abuse of discretion is generally shown through proof of manifest 

error, clearly unreasonable exercise of judgment, or actions taken which are contrary to both logic and probable 

deductions from known facts. See André Thyratron, 54 ECAB 257, 261 (2002). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 9, 2016 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 3, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees' Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees' Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees' Compensation Appeals Board