United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.B., Appellant 

and 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Baltimore, MD, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0580 

Issued: May 19, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 8, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 4, 2016 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from the last merit decision dated May 11, 2015 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 to review the merits of the claim. 

ISSUE 

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

for a hearing. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 17, 2015 appellant, then a 46-year-old administrative assistant filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1), alleging that on July 24, 2014 she was waiting to make a salad at 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

lunch when she stepped out of the way of a coworker and hit her right knee on an open cabinet of 

the salad bar. She did not stop work. Appellant also claimed continuation of pay. The 

supervisor checked the box marked “yes” in response to whether her knowledge of the facts 

about the injury agreed with the statements made by appellant. 

By letter dated April 2, 2015, OWCP informed appellant of the type of evidence needed 

to support her claim and requested that she submit such evidence within 30 days. No additional 

information was received. 

In an April 2, 2015 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s request for continuation of pay as 

the claim was not reported on an approved OWCP form within 30 days of the injury. 

Appellant requested a telephonic hearing before an OWCP hearing representative of the 

April 2, 2015 decision. 

On May 11, 2015 OWCP also denied the claim for compensation, finding that appellant 

had not established that the events giving rise to the claimed injury occurred as alleged. 

On June 5, 2015 OWCP received appellant’s May 15, 2015 request for reconsideration 

from the May 11, 2015 decision, but submitted no additional evidence. By decision dated 

June 29, 2015, it denied appellant’s request without conducting a merit review of the claim. 

In an October 22, 2015 letter, OWCP responded to appellant’s request for a hearing. It 

advised her that a telephone hearing would be held on December 9, 2015 at 12 p.m., Eastern 

Standard Time (EST). OWCP instructed appellant to call the provided toll-free number a few 

minutes before the hearing time and enter the pass code to gain access to the conference call. It 

mailed the October 22, 2015 letter to her address of record. Appellant did not appear at the 

hearing. 

By decision dated January 4, 2016, OWCP found that appellant had abandoned her 

request for a hearing. It determined that she received a written notice of the hearing 30 days 

before the scheduled hearing but did not appear and did not explain her absence either before or 

after the scheduled hearing. 

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 

 2

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

days before the scheduled date.3

 OWCP has the burden of proving that it mailed a 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, Chapter 

2.1601.6(g) of OWCP’s procedures6

 and section 10.622(f) of OWCP regulations7 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 her request for a hearing and return the case to the 

district office.8

ANALYSIS 

Following OWCP’s April 2, 2015 decision denying her claim for continuation of pay, 

appellant timely requested a telephonic hearing before an OWCP hearing representative. On 

October 22, 2015 OWCP notified appellant that her hearing was scheduled for December 9, 2015 

at 12:00 p.m., EST. It provided a toll-free number and a pass code to use at the time of the 

hearing. Appellant did not request a postponement, failed to call in at the scheduled hearing, and 

failed to provide any notification for such failure to OWCP within 10 days of the scheduled date 

of the hearing. As she did not appear and did not comply with OWCP’s requirements regarding 

requesting postponement and/or rescheduling within the allotted time, the Board finds that 

OWCP properly determined that she had abandoned her hearing request. 

On appeal, appellant asserts that she did not receive notice of the scheduled hearing as 

her local post office often delivers her mail to the wrong address. However, in an October 22, 

2015 letter, OWCP advised appellant that a telephone hearing would be held on December 9, 

2015 and provided her the telephone number and passcode for accessing the hearing. The 

hearing notice was properly mailed to appellant’s last known address of record. The Board has 

held, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a letter properly addressed and mailed in the due 

course of business is presumed to have arrived at the mailing address in due course. This is 

known as the mailbox rule.9

 Consequently, it is presumed that appellant received the properly 

addressed notice of hearing. 

 3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.617(b). 

4 See also Michelle R. Littlejohn, 42 ECAB 463 (1991). 

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

6

 20 C.F.R. § 10.622(f). 

7

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

2.1601.6(g) (October 2011). 

8 See supra note 6. 

9 See James A. Gray, 54 ECAB 277 (2002). 
4

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant abandoned her request for an oral hearing. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 4, 2016 decision of Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 19, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board