United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.M., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 

Washington, DC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0310 

Issued: October 13, 2016 

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 December 8, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 21, 2015 

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

one year has elapsed from September 24, 2007,1

 the date of the most recent OWCP merit 

decision, 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.3 

                                                             1

 For adverse final OWCP decisions issued prior to November 19, 2008, a claimant had up to one year to file an 

appeal with the Board. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(d)(2) (2008). 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

3

 Together with her appeal request, appellant submitted a timely request for oral argument pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.5(b). By order dated June 7, 2016, the Board exercised its discretion and denied the request as appellant’s 

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. 16-0310 (issued June 7, 2016). 
2 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing as 

untimely. 

On appeal appellant argues the merits of her case. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 25, 2007 appellant, a 40-year-old program analyst, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1), alleging injuries to her neck and lower back on July 11, 2007 as a result of being 

struck by another vehicle on her driver’s side front tire while exiting a federal building parking 

lot. 

By decision dated September 24, 2007, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that she 

failed to establish that the accident occurred in the performance of her regular or specially 

assigned duties. 

In an appeal request form dated August 7, 2015 and postmarked August 20, 2015, 

appellant requested a telephonic oral hearing before a hearing representative of the Branch of 

Hearings and Review. 

By decision dated September 21, 2015, OWCP denied the request for an oral hearing 

finding that appellant’s request was untimely because it was not made within 30 days of its 

September 24, 2007 decision. It further indicated that it had exercised its discretion and further 

denied the request for the reason that the relevant issue of the case could be addressed by 

requesting reconsideration and submitting evidence not previously considered by OWCP. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8124(b)(1) of FECA provides: “Before review under section 8128(a) of this title 

[relating to reconsideration], a claimant for compensation not satisfied with a decision of the 

Secretary under subsection (a) of this section is entitled, on request made within 30 days after the 

date of the issuance of the decision, to a hearing on [his] claim before a representative of the 

Secretary.”4

 

Section 10.615 of Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides, “A hearing is a 

review of an adverse decision by a hearing representative. Initially, the claimant can choose 

between two formats: An oral hearing or a review of the written record.”5

 The hearing request 

must be sent within 30 days (as determined by postmark or other carrier’s date marking) of the 

date of the decision for which a hearing is sought.6

 OWCP has discretion, however, to grant or 

                                                             4

 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1). 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.615. 

6 Id. at § 10.616. 
3 

deny a request that is made after this 30-day period.7 In such a case, it will determine whether to 

grant a discretionary hearing and, if not, will so advise the claimant with reasons.8

 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant had 30-calendar days from OWCP’s September 24, 2007 decision to request an 

oral hearing. She filed a request for an oral hearing postmarked August 20, 2015, which was 

more than 30 days after OWCP issued its September 24, 2007 decision.9

 Section 8124(b)(1) is 

unequivocal on the time limitation for requesting a hearing.10 For this reason, the Board finds 

that the request was untimely. Because the application was untimely filed, appellant was not 

entitled to an oral hearing as a matter of right under section 8124(b)(1) of FECA. 

Exercising its discretion to grant an oral hearing, OWCP denied appellant’s request 

finding that she could equally address any issues in her case by requesting reconsideration with 

OWCP. Because reconsideration exists as an alternative appeal right to address the issues raised 

by OWCP’s September 24, 2007 decision, the Board finds that OWCP did not abuse its 

discretion in denying appellant’s untimely request for an oral hearing.11 

On appeal appellant argues the merits of her case. The Board noted above that it only has 

jurisdiction over OWCP’s September 21, 2015 nonmerit decision which denied her request for 

an oral hearing and therefore is precluded from conducting a merit review. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing as 

untimely. 

                                                             7 See G.W., Docket No. 10-782 (issued April 23, 2010). 

8 Id. 

9

 Under OWCP regulations and procedures, the timeliness of a request for a hearing is determined on the basis of 

the postmark of the envelope containing the request. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Hearings 

and Reviews of the Written Record, Chapter 2.1601.4(a) (October 2011). 

10 See William F. Osborne, 46 ECAB 198 (1994). 

11 See Gerard F. Workinger, 56 ECAB 259 (2005). 
4 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 21, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 13, 2016 

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