United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.K., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Philadelphia, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0099 

Issued: February 1, 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 17, 20162 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an April 20, 

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

January 29, 2016 reconsideration request was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear 

evidence of error. The appeal was docketed as number 17-0099. 

OWCP initially denied appellant’s occupational disease claim on April 9, 2014. 

Appellant, through counsel, on April 30, 2014 requested a telephonic hearing before an OWCP 

hearing representative. An OWCP hearing representative issued a January 29, 2015 decision that 

 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

 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from April 20, 2016, the date of OWCP’s last decision was 

October 17, 2016. Since using October 21, 2016, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the postmark is considered the date of filing. The date of 

the U.S. Postal Service postmark is October 17, 2016, rendering the appeal timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. 501.3(f)(1). 
2

affirmed the April 9, 2014 decision. Counsel requested reconsideration on January 29, 2016, and 

the request was received on the same date. In its April 20, 2016 decision, OWCP found that the 

request was untimely filed and failed to present 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 decision 

for which review is sought.3

 In this case, appellant sought review of the January 29, 2015 

decision and his request for reconsideration was received on Friday, January 29, 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. The 

one-year period begins on the next day after the date of the contested merit decision.4

 However, 

the last day of the period shall be included unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday or a legal holiday.5

 

Thus, the time for requesting reconsideration of OWCP’s January 29, 2015 decision began to run 

on January 30, 2015, and ended on January 29, 2016. As such, the reconsideration request was 

timely, as it was received by OWCP on January 29, 2016, exactly one year after 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.6

 The 

clear evidence of error standard utilized by OWCP in its April 20, 2016 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. 

 

 3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a). 

4

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

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

6 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b). 
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 20, 2016 decision is set aside and the case 

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

Issued: February 1, 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