United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Saint Cloud, MN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0398

Issued: August 22, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 19, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 27, 2017 nonmerit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 As more than 180 days 

has elapsed from the last merit decision, dated May 11, 2017, to the filing of this appeal, pursuant 

to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the 

Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned her request for 

an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing representative.

 

1 Appellant timely requested oral argument before the Board pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). In an order dated 

July 9, 2018, the Board, after exercising its discretion, denied the request as her arguments on appeal could be 

adequately addressed in a decision based on a review of the case as submitted on the record. Order Denying Request 

for Oral Argument, Docket No. 18-0398 (issued July 9, 2018).

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 9, 2017 appellant, then a 26-year-old rural carrier associate, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained occupational stress causally 

related to factors of her federal employment. She did not stop work. 

In a subsequently submitted January 21, 2017 statement, appellant related that she 

experienced numbness, tingling, and soreness in her hand and wrist while casing mail.

By decision dated May 11, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. It 

found that she had not submitted medical evidence sufficient to establish that she sustained a 

diagnosed condition causally related to the accepted work factors.

Appellant, in a letter dated June 10, 2017 and postmarked June 12, 2017, requested an oral 

hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. On September 14, 

2017 OWCP’s hearing representative advised her of a scheduled telephone hearing for 

November 7, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). He mailed the notice to appellant’s 

address of record and provided her with a toll-free number to call, along with the appropriate 

passcode. Appellant did not, however, telephone for the hearing at the appointed time, or contact 

OWCP within 10 days thereafter.

By decision dated November 27, 2017, OWCP’s hearing representative determined that 

appellant had abandoned her request for a telephone hearing. He found that she had received 

written notice of the telephone hearing 30 days before the scheduled hearing, but that she failed to 

attend the hearing or contact OWCP either before or after the scheduled hearing to explain her 

absence.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Under FECA and its implementing regulations, a claimant who has received a final adverse 

decision from OWCP may obtain a hearing by writing 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 has the burden of proving that it mailed to appellant and his or her representative a notice 

of a scheduled hearing.5

 

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

4

Id. at § 10.617(b). OWCP’s procedure also provides that notice of a hearing should be mailed to the claimant and 

the claimant’s authorized representative at least 30 days prior to the scheduled hearing. Federal (FECA) Procedure 

Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Hearings and Review of the Written Record, Chapter 2.1601.6(b) (October 2011).

5 See Michelle R. Littlejohn, 42 ECAB 463, 465 (1991); see also K.D., Docket No. 11-0077 (issued 

August 18, 2011).
3

A hearing before the Branch of Hearings and Review can be considered abandoned only 

under very limited circumstances.6 With respect to abandonment of hearing requests, Chapter 

2.1601(g) of OWCP’s procedures7and section 10.622(f) of its regulations8 provide in relevant part 

that failure of the claimant to appear at the scheduled hearing, failure to request a postponement, 

and failure to request in writing within 10 days after the date set for the hearing that another hearing 

be scheduled shall constitute abandonment of the request for a hearing. Under these circumstances, 

the Branch of Hearings and Review will issue a formal decision finding that the claimant has 

abandoned his or her request for a hearing and return the case to the district office.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned her request for 

a telephone hearing before an OWCP hearing representative.

On May 11, 2017 OWCP issued a final decision denying appellant’s occupational disease 

claim.10 Appellant requested an oral hearing in a letter dated June 10, 2017 and postmarked 

June 12, 2017. By September 14, 2017 letter, a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings 

and Review informed appellant that it had scheduled a telephone hearing for November 7, 2017 at 

11:00 a.m. EST.

Appellant did not appear for the November 7, 2017 scheduled hearing, and there is no 

indication that she requested postponement of the hearing.11 Moreover, she did not, within the 10-

day period following the scheduled hearing, explain her absence and request that another hearing 

be scheduled.12 OWCP’s regulations provide that where good cause for failure to appear is shown, 

another hearing will be scheduled and conducted by teleconference.13

On appeal appellant contends that at the time of the scheduled hearing she was on her 

honeymoon and that her telephone was not working. She did not, however, advise OWCP in 

writing of these circumstances within 10 days after the date set for the hearing, or request that 

another hearing be scheduled.14 Appellant also contended that she sustained carpal tunnel 

 

6 Claudia J. Whitten, 52 ECAB 483 (2001).

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

2.1601.6(g) (October 2011).

8 20 C.F.R. § 10.622(f).

9 See supra note 7.

10 The May 11, 2017 merit decision is not currently before the Board, as it predated appellant’s December 19, 2017

appeal by more than 180 days. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e).

11 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.622(c).

12 Id. at § 10.622(f).

13 Id.; see also C.M., Docket No. 16-0412 (issued September 25, 2017).

14 See C.M., id.
4

syndrome due to her employment. As noted, however, the Board lacks jurisdiction over the merits 

of the case.15

The record establishes that OWCP provided appellant at least 30 days advanced written 

notice of her scheduled hearing. Appellant did not request postponement of the hearing, nor did 

she telephone for the November 7, 2017 scheduled hearing. Lastly, she did not provide a written 

explanation for her absence within the 10-day period following the scheduled hearing. OWCP, 

therefore, properly found that appellant abandoned her hearing request.16

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned her request for 

an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing representative. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 27, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 22, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

15 See supra note 10.

16 See P.M., Docket No. 17-1958 (issued May 17, 2018).