United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Portland, OR, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1084

Issued: November 16, 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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 3, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 19, 2017 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from the last merit decision, dated June 19, 2017, 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 this case.2

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence after OWCP rendered its December 19, 2017 

decision. Section 501.2(c)(1) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited 

to the evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP 

will not be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded 

from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. 
2

ISSUE

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

an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing representative.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 10, 2017 appellant, then a 52-year-old lead sales service associate, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained carpal tunnel syndrome 

causally related to factors of her federal employment. She indicated that she previously had an 

approved claim for carpal tunnel syndrome 20 years earlier. 

By decision dated June 19, 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, on July 6, 2017, requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative. On October 18, 2017 OWCP advised her that it had scheduled a telephone hearing 

for December 4, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). It mailed the notice to

appellant’s address of record and provided her with a toll-free number to call, as well as 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 December 19, 2017, an OWCP 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 had 

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

her absence.

On appeal appellant contends that she telephoned for the scheduled hearing at 1:30 p.m. 

Pacific Standard Time (PST) instead of 1:30 p.m. EST. She maintains that she left a message for 

OWCP’s hearing representative after she realized that she had called at the incorrect time, but that 

he never returned her telephone call. Appellant also raises arguments regarding the merits of her 

claim.

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 to 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 

 

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

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

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 June 19, 2017 OWCP issued a final decision denying appellant’s occupational disease 

claim.10 Appellant requested an oral hearing in a letter dated July 6, 2017 and postmarked 

July 12, 2017. By letter dated October 18, 2017, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review 

informed appellant that it had scheduled a telephone hearing for December 4, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. 

EST.

The record establishes that the Branch of Hearings and Review 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 December 4, 2017 scheduled hearing at the appropriate 

time. 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.11

 

4

Id. at § 10.617(b). OWCP 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. 11-77 (issued August 18, 2011).

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

7 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, supra note 4 at Chapter 2.1601.6(g) (October 2011).

8 20 C.F.R. § 10.622(f).

9 See supra note 6.

10 As previously noted, the June 19, 2017 merit decision is not currently before the Board, as it predated appellant’s 

May 3, 2018 appeal by more than 180 days. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e).

11 See P.M., Docket No. 17-1958 (issued May 17, 2018).
4

On appeal appellant contends that she telephoned for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. PST rather 

than 1:30 p.m. EST. As explained above, 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.12 Appellant also contends on appeal that she sustained carpal tunnel syndrome due to 

her employment. As noted, however, the Board lacks jurisdiction over the merits of the case.13

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 December 19, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: November 16, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

12 See C.M., Docket No. 16-0412 (issued September 25, 2017).

13 See supra note 10.