United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.B., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Renton, WA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0933 

Issued: July 17, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas P. Fochs, 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 March 27, 2017 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a February 21, 

2017 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), which dated his 

request for reconsideration of the merits of the claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a), the standard 

used to review timely reconsideration requests. The appeal was docketed as No. 17-0933. 

OWCP initially denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim by decision dated 

March 7, 2002. Appellant requested reconsideration of this decision from OWCP, through 

counsel, on January 12, 2017, specifically alleging clear evidence of error in the March 7, 2002 

decision. 

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 

 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

review is sought.2 In this case, appellant sought review of the March 7, 2002 decision, but his 

request for reconsideration was not received until January 13, 2017. Thus, his request for 

reconsideration was received after the one-year time limitation from the date of the decision 

being appealed. 

OWCP will consider an untimely application only if the application demonstrates clear 

evidence of error on the part of its most recent decision. The application must establish, on its 

face, that such decision was erroneous.3

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

reconsideration was untimely. Because appellant filed an untimely reconsideration request, the 

case will be remanded to OWCP for application of the correct standard for reviewing untimely 

reconsideration requests, the clear evidence of error standard.4

 The standard utilized by OWCP 

in its February 21, 2017 decision is appropriate only for timely reconsideration requests. After 

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 21, 2017 decision is set aside and the 

case is remanded for further action consistent with this order. 

Issued: July 17, 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 Id. at § 10.607. See also A.B., Docket No. 15-0521 (issued June 13, 2016). 

4 Id. at § 10.606(b).