United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

McHenry, IL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1373 

Issued: January 5, 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 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 22, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 17, 2016 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from the last merit decision dated June 15, 2015 to the filing of this appeal, the Board 

lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of the claim pursuant to the Federal Employees’ 

Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3. 

ISSUE 

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

OWCP hearing representative. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 12, 2015 appellant, then a 45-year-old rural letter carrier, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she experienced daily migraines from 

exposure to vehicle fumes. She stopped work on February 11, 2015. 

By decision dated June 15, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed condition causally related to the 

accepted employment factor. 

Appellant, on July 14, 2015, requested a telephone hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative. 

On January 27, 2016 OWCP notified appellant that it would hold a telephone hearing on 

March 7, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. It instructed her to call the provided toll-free 

number and enter a pass code when prompted. 

In a decision dated March 17, 2016, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review found that 

appellant had abandoned her hearing request. It determined that she received written notification 

of the hearing 30 days in advance, but failed to appear. The Branch of Hearings and Review 

further found that appellant had failed to contact OWCP either before or after the scheduled 

hearing to explain her absence. 

On appeal appellant maintains that she did not abandon her hearing, but instead 

telephoned at 2:00 p.m. as she lived in the Central Standard Time zone and was trying to adjust 

for Eastern Standard Time. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

adverse decision by OWCP is entitled to receive a hearing upon writing to the address specified 

in the decision within 30 days of the date of the decision for which a hearing is sought.2

 Unless 

otherwise directed in writing by the claims examiner, an OWCP 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.3

 OWCP has the burden of proving that it mailed notice of a 

scheduled hearing to a claimant.4

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

under very limited circumstances.5

 With respect to abandonment of hearing requests, OWCP’s 

procedures provides in relevant part that failure of the claimant to appear at the scheduled 

 2 Id. at § 8124(b)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a). 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.617(b). 

4 See R.C., 59 ECAB 521 (2008); Michelle R. Littlejohn, 42 ECAB 463 (1991). 

5 C.T., Docket No. 08-2160 (issued May 7, 2009); Claudia J. Whitten, 52 ECAB 483 (2001). 
3

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 her request for a hearing and return the 

case to the district office.6

ANALYSIS 

In a decision dated June 15, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim 

after finding that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish that her migraines were 

causally related to factors of her federal employment. Appellant timely requested a telephone 

hearing before an OWCP hearing representative on July 14, 2015. On January 27, 2016 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review notified appellant, by mail, that it had scheduled her 

telephone hearing for March 7, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. It provided a toll-free 

number and a pass code to use at the time of the hearing. Appellant did not request a 

postponement and did not call in for the scheduled hearing. She also did not submit a written 

request within the 10-day period following the scheduled hearing explaining her absence and 

asking that another hearing be scheduled.7

 Accordingly, the Board finds that appellant 

abandoned her request for a hearing. 

On appeal appellant relates that she telephoned for the scheduled hearing an hour late 

because she incorrectly adjusted for Eastern Standard Time. There is no evidence, however, that 

she provided this information to OWCP within 10 days of the scheduled hearing. The Board is 

limited to reviewing only that evidence which was before OWCP at the time it rendered its 

decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 (2005). The record 

substantiates that appellant did not appear at the scheduled hearing after proper notice had been 

provided. The Board therefore finds that she abandoned her request for a telephone hearing.8

CONCLUSION 

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

OWCP hearing representative. 

 6

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

2.1601.6(g) (October 2011). 

7

 20 C.F.R. § 10.622(f). 

8 See L.D., Docket No. 16-0316 (issued April 13, 2016); S.J., Docket No. 16-0670 (issued July 5, 2016). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 17, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 5, 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