United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL 

CENTER, Jacksonville, MS, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1518

Issued: December 13, 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 July 3, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 6, 2017 nonmerit decision 

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

since the last merit decision dated February 8, 2016, 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 over the merits of this case.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP properly found that appellant’s request for reconsideration 

was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 Appellant submitted new evidence on appeal. As the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to evidence that was before 

OWCP at the time of the final decision, the Board may not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). J.W., Docket No. 17-1366 (issued October 26, 2017). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 22, 2015 appellant, then a 37-year-old cook, filed an occupational disease claim 

(Form CA-2) alleging that on October 13, 2014 she first became aware of her bilateral knee 

condition. However, it was not until July 22, 2015 that she realized that the condition had been 

caused or aggravated by her federal employment duties which required a lot of lifting and 

bending. Appellant did not stop working. 

In a letter dated August 4, 2015, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of record 

was insufficient to establish her claim. She was advised regarding the medical and factual 

evidence required and afforded 30 days to provide the requested information. 

In response to OWCP’s request appellant submitted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 

scans of her knees dated July 28, 2015, a position description, as well as her own statement 

responding to OWCP’s questions, and a statement by W.F., a cook foreman, regarding her work 

duties. On August 20, 2015 OWCP received additional medical evidence. 

In a July 22, 2015 report, Dr. David Melvin Walker, an employing establishment family 

practice physician, diagnosed knee strain and knee swelling. He again diagnosed right knee 

strain and swelling and provided work restrictions in an August 3, 2015 report. 

By decision dated September 9, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found she had 

failed to submit any medical evidence causally relating a diagnosed medical condition to 

accepted factors of her federal employment.

On October 5, 2015 OWCP received appellant’s September 28, 2015 request for 

reconsideration.

By decision dated October 8, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration. It found that she failed to submit any new evidence or clearly identify the basis

for her reconsideration request. 

On December 7, 2015 OWCP received additional medical evidence 

In an August 25, 2015 report Dr. Daniel Dare, a treating Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted that appellant was seen for bilateral knee problems. He diagnosed bilateral 

patella chondromalacia and lateral meniscus knee cartilage tear. The report noted that appellant 

injured herself at home when she fell and that it was not a work injury. 

Appellant underwent right knee arthroscopic surgery on September 3, 2015. 

In a September 15, 2015 report, Erin Hines, a nurse practitioner, noted that appellant was 

seen for postoperative right knee complaints. She related appellant’s work restrictions and she 

answered “no” to the question of whether appellant had a work-related injury. On October 13, 

2015 Ms. Hines provided work restrictions for appellant and diagnosed right knee 

chondromalacia. 
3

By report dated November 18, 2015, Dr. Dare diagnosed appellant with right knee 

chondromalacia, and right knee lateral meniscus tear. He also noted appellant’s work 

restrictions. 

On December 7, 2015 OWCP received appellant’s December 2, 2015 request 

reconsideration. 

By decision dated February 8, 2016, OWCP denied modification. It found the medical 

evidence appellant submitted failed to establish causal relationship between the accepted work 

factors and the diagnosed knee conditions.

In an appeal request form dated March 28, 2016 and received on May 11, 2016, appellant 

requested reconsideration. In support of her request appellant submitted a copy of her position 

description as a cook. 

In a letter dated May 18, 2016, OWCP advised counsel that it could not communicate 

with the firm as no written authorization by appellant had been submitted. A copy of the letter 

was sent to appellant. 

By decision dated May 19, 2016, OWCP denied reconsideration. It advised appellant 

that any request for reconsideration must be made within one year of February 8, 2016, the last 

merit decision. It found the evidence submitted was duplicative and insufficient to warrant a 

merit review. 

In an undated letter received on February 22, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration. 

She detailed her work duties as a cook and provided pictures of her work environment. 

On February 28, 2017 OWCP received a letter dated February 8, 2017 from appellant 

requesting reconsideration of the merits of her claim. 

By decision dated April 6, 2017 OWCP determined that appellant’s request for 

reconsideration was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

OWCP, through regulations, has imposed limitations on the exercise of its discretionary 

authority under section 8128(a) of FECA.3 OWCP will not review a decision denying or 

terminating a benefit unless the application for review is filed within one year of the date of that 

decision.4 Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date (i.e., the “received date” in 

 

3

Supra note 1. The Board has found that the imposition of the one-year limitation does not constitute an abuse of 

the discretionary authority granted OWCP under section 8128(a) of FECA See J.S., Docket No. 10-385 (issued 

September 15, 2010); Andrew Fullman, 57 ECAB 574 (2006); Adell Allen (Melvin L. Allen), 55 ECAB 390 (2004).

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.607; Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 

(February 2016); see also E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued March 18, 2010); Debra McDavid, 57 ECAB 149 

(2005); Alan G. Williams, 52 ECAB 180 (2000).
4

OWCP’s Integrated Federal Workers’ Compensation System.5 The Board has found that the 

imposition of the one-year limitation does not constitute an abuse of the discretionary authority 

granted OWCP under section 8128(a) of FECA.6

When an application for review is untimely, OWCP undertakes a limited review to 

determine whether the application demonstrates clear evidence that OWCP’s final merit decision 

was in error.7 OWCP procedures provide that OWCP will reopen a claimant’s case for merit 

review, notwithstanding the one-year filing limitation set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 10.607, if the 

claimant’s application for review shows “clear evidence of error” on the part of OWCP.8 In this 

regard, OWCP will limit its focus to a review of how the newly submitted evidence bears on the 

prior evidence of record.9

To demonstrate clear evidence of error, a claimant must submit evidence relevant to the 

issue which was decided by OWCP.10 The evidence must be positive, precise, and explicit and 

must manifest on its face that OWCP committed an error.11 Evidence which does not raise a 

substantial question concerning the correctness of OWCP’s decision is insufficient to 

demonstrate clear evidence of error.12 It is not enough merely to show that the evidence could be 

construed so as to produce a contrary conclusion.13 This entails a limited review by OWCP of 

how the evidence submitted with the reconsideration request bears on the evidence previously of 

record and whether the new evidence demonstrates clear error on the part of OWCP.14 To 

demonstrate clear evidence of error, the evidence submitted must not only be of sufficient 

probative value to create a conflict in medical opinion or establish a clear procedural error, but 

must be of sufficient probative value to prima facie shift the weight of the evidence in favor of 

the claimant and raise a substantial question as to the correctness of OWCP’s decision.15 The 

Board makes an independent determination of whether a claimant has submitted clear evidence 

 

5

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, id. at Chapter 2.1602.4(b) (February 2016).

6

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); Leon D. Faidley, Jr., 41 ECAB 104, 111 (1989).

7 B.W., Docket No. 10-323 (issued September 2, 2010); M.E., 58 ECAB 309 (2007) Leon J. Modrowski, 55 

ECAB 196 (2004); Thankamma Mathews, 44 ECAB 765 (1993); Jesus D. Sanchez, 41 ECAB 964 (1990).

8

See Gladys Mercado, 52 ECAB 255 (2001). Section 10.607(b) provides: “OWCP will consider an untimely 

application for reconsideration only if the application demonstrates clear evidence of error on the part of [it] in its 

most recent merit decision. The application must establish, on its face, that such decision was erroneous.” 

20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b).

9

See Nelson T. Thompson, 43 ECAB 919 (1992).

10 See Darletha Coleman, 55 ECAB 143 (2003); Dean D. Beets, 43 ECAB 1153 (1992).

11 See Pasquale C. D’Arco, 54 ECAB 560 (2003); Leona N. Travis, 43 ECAB 227 (1991).

12 See Leon J. Modrowski, supra note 7; Jesus D. Sanchez, supra note 7. 

13 See Leona N. Travis, supra note 11.

14 See supra note 9.

15 Leon D. Faidley, Jr., supra note 6. 
5

of error on the part of OWCP such that OWCP abused its discretion in denying merit review in 

the face of such evidence.16

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant’s request for 

reconsideration was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. 

OWCP properly found that appellant’s requests for reconsideration received on 

February 22, and 28, 2017 were untimely filed as more than one year elapsed between the last 

merit decision issued in this case on February 8, 2016 and the date these requests for 

reconsideration were scanned as received by OWCP.

17

 

The Board also finds that appellant has failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error on 

the part of OWCP in denying appellant’s claim. 

In reconsideration requests, appellant requested a merit review of the denial of her claim. 

She described her work duties and submitted photographs of her work area. However, OWCP 

had accepted the alleged factors of federal employment. OWCP denied appellant’s claim 

because the record was devoid of any medical evidence establishing causal relationship between 

a diagnosed medical condition and the accepted work factors. The evidence submitted with an 

untimely request for reconsideration must be positive, precise and explicit and must manifest on 

its face that OWCP committed an error.18 Since OWCP had accepted appellant’s implicated 

federal employment factors, her description of her work duties and the photographs submitted 

were irrelevant to the underlying medical issue and were insufficient to demonstrate clear 

evidence of error.19

For these reasons, appellant has not demonstrated clear evidence of error by OWCP in its 

April 6, 2017 decision. 

On appeal appellant contends that it was her counsel’s fault for failing to timely request 

reconsideration of her claim. She contends that she was unaware that no signed attorney 

authorization form had been submitted to OWCP. Contrary to appellant’s contention that she 

was unaware of the May 18, 2016 letter to her attorney, the record reflects OWCP also mailed 

her a copy of the letter that was sent to her attorney. The letter informed counsel that OWCP 

was not authorized to provide it with any information regarding appellant’s claim as no signed

authorization had been submitted from appellant.

20

 

16 See George C. Vernon, 54 ECAB 319 (2003); Gregory Griffin, 41 ECAB 186 (1989), petition for recon. 

denied, 41 ECAB 458 (1990).

17 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).

18 Supra note 11. 

19 See B.L., Docket No. 17-1452 (issued October 25, 2017).

20 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.700 regarding representation before OWCP.
6

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant’s request for 

reconsideration was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs dated April 6, 2017 is affirmed.

Issued: December 13, 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