United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Milwaukee, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1219

Issued: December 10, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 6, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 14, 2019 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from the last merit decision, dated July 13, 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 on appeal. However, 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. Id.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s October 2, 2018 request for 

reconsideration, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 1, 2017 appellant, then a 24-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on that date, he injured his nose when he tripped on a pallet and 

fell while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing 

establishment indicated that he stopped work on the date of injury and had not returned. 

In an unsigned report dated February 1, 2017, Dr. Jillian L. Theobald, an emergency 

medicine specialist, diagnosed nasal fracture. In a work status report of the same date, Michelle F. 

Strait, a physician assistant, noted that appellant could return to work on February 2, 2017, full

time with restrictions. 

In a development letter dated May 30, 2017, OWCP advised appellant that when his claim 

was first received it appeared to be a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time from 

work and it administratively approved payment of a limited amount of medical expenses. It noted 

that his claim had been reopened for consideration because it received an inquiry regarding bill 

payment issues. OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of his claim and requested 

additional medical evidence in support of his claim. It afforded him 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence. 

By decision dated July 13, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that he had not 

submitted medical evidence containing a diagnosis by a qualified physician in connection with the 

accepted February 1, 2017 employment incident. 

OWCP subsequently received a report dated January 21, 2019, wherein Dr. Tara M. 

Kennedy, a family medicine specialist, noted that appellant reported no residual symptoms from 

his broken nose. Dr. Kennedy indicated that appellant was present to address the deficiencies of 

his traumatic injury claim. 

On February 12, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s July 13, 2017 

decision. 

In a letter dated January 28, 2019, Dr. Kennedy indicated that appellant sustained a closed 

fracture of his nasal bones on February 1, 2017 when he fell while at work. She noted that the 

fracture was immediately reset on that date and he has encountered no residual symptoms. 

In an duty status report (Form CA-17) dated February 1, 2019, the physician, who was an 

ear, nose, and throat specialist, and whose signature is illegible, diagnosed nasal bone fracture and 

indicated that appellant tripped and broke his nose when it struck work equipment. 

By decision dated February 14, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Pursuant to section 8128(a) of FECA, OWCP has the discretion to reopen a case for further 

merit review.3 This discretionary authority, however, is subject to certain restrictions. For 

instance, a request for reconsideration must be received within one year of the date of OWCP’s 

decision for which review is sought.4 Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date of 

the request for reconsideration as indicated by the received date in the integrated Federal 

Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS).5 Imposition of this one-year filing limitation does 

not constitute an abuse of discretion.6

OWCP may not deny a reconsideration request solely because it was untimely filed. When 

a claimant’s request for reconsideration is untimely filed, it must nevertheless undertake a limited 

review to determine whether it demonstrates clear evidence of error.7 If a request for 

reconsideration demonstrates clear evidence of error, OWCP will reopen the case for merit 

review.8

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

issue which was decided by OWCP.9 The evidence must be positive, precise, and explicit and 

must manifest on its face that OWCP committed an error.10 Evidence which does not raise a 

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

clear evidence of error.11 It is not enough merely to show that the evidence could be construed so 

as to produce a contrary conclusion.12 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.13 To demonstrate clear evidence 

of error, the evidence submitted must be of sufficient probative value to shift the weight of the 

 

3 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see M.E., Docket No. 18-1497 (issued March 1, 2019); J.W., Docket No. 18-0703 (issued 

November 14, 2018); Y.S., Docket No. 08-0440 (issued March 16, 2009).

4 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).

5 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4(b) (February 2016).

6 See M.E., supra note 3; E.R., Docket No. 09-0599 (issued June 3, 2009); Leon D. Faidley, Jr., 41 ECAB 

104 (1989).

7 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); M.E., supra note 3; Charles J. Prudencio, 41 ECAB 499, 501-02 (1990).

8 G.G., Docket No. 18-1074 (issued January 7, 2019); see also id. at § 10.607(b); supra note 5 at Chapter 2.1602.5 

(February 2016).

9

J.F., Docket No. 18-1802 (issued May 20, 2019); J.D., Docket No. 16-1767 (issued January 12, 2017); see 

Dean D. Beets, 43 ECAB 1153 (1992).

10 Id.; see also Leona N. Travis, 43 ECAB 227 (1999).

11 J.F., supra note 9; J.D., supra note 9; Jimmy L. Day, 48 ECAB 652 (1997).

12 Id.

13 Id.
4

evidence in favor of the claimant and raise a substantial question as to the correctness of OWCP’s 

decision.14

OWCP’s procedures note that the term clear evidence of error is intended to represent a 

difficult standard.15 The claimant must present evidence which on its face shows that OWCP made 

an error. Evidence such as a detailed, well-rationalized medical report which, if submitted before 

the denial was issued, would have created a conflict in medical opinion requiring further 

development, is not clear evidence of error.16 The Board makes an independent determination of 

whether a claimant has demonstrated clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP.17

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration as it 

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

OWCP’s regulations18 and procedures19 establish a one-year time limitation for requesting 

reconsideration, which begins on the date of the last OWCP merit decision. A right to 

reconsideration within one year also accompanies any subsequent merit decision on the issues.20 

The most recent merit decision was OWCP’s July 13, 2017 decision. As appellant’s request for 

reconsideration was not received by OWCP until February 12, 2019, more than one year after the 

July 13, 2017 decision, the Board finds that it was untimely filed. Because his request was 

untimely, he must demonstrate clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP in having denied his 

traumatic injury claim.

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

the part of OWCP in its last merit decision. OWCP denied his traumatic injury claim, finding that

he had not submitted medical evidence that established causal relationship between a diagnosed 

medical condition and the accepted February 1, 2017 employment incident.

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

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

manifest on its face that OWCP committed an error. Evidence that does not raise a substantial 

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

 

14 J.F., supra note 9; M.E., supra note 3; Robert G. Burns, 57 ECAB 657 (2006).

15 See G.G., supra note 8.

16 J.F., supra note 9; J.S., Docket No. 16-1240 (issued December 1, 2016); supra note 5 at Chapter 2.1602.5(a) 

(February 2016).

17 See M.E., supra note 3; D.S., Docket No. 17-0407 (issued May 24, 2017).

18 S.C., Docket No. 18-0126 (issued May 14, 2019); J.W., supra note 3; 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a); see Alberta 

Dukes, 56 ECAB 247 (2005).

19 Supra note 5 at Chapter 2.1602.4 (February 2016); see S.C., id.; Veletta C. Coleman, 48 ECAB 367, 370 (1997).

20 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); see S.C., supra note 18; Debra McDavid, 57 ECAB 149 (2005).
5

evidence of error.21 In his request for reconsideration, appellant submitted a report from

Dr. Kennedy dated January 21, 2019, a letter from her dated January 28, 2019, and an illegiblysigned Form CA-17 dated February 1, 2019. This evidence does not show that OWCP erred in its 

July 13, 2017 decision at the time that it was issued. While Dr. Kennedy’s report did provide a 

diagnosis, as previously noted, evidence such as a detailed, well-rationalized medical report which, 

if submitted before the denial was issued, would have created a conflict in medical opinion 

requiring further development, does not demonstrate clear evidence of error.22 The illegibly signed 

Form CA-17 is of no probative value and therefore does not demonstrate clear evidence of error. 

Clear evidence of error is intended to represent a difficult standard. The Board makes an 

independent determination of whether a claimant has submitted clear evidence of error on the part 

of OWCP.23 As appellant has not submitted such evidence, the Board finds that he has not 

demonstrated clear evidence of error.

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.

 

21 Supra note 14.

22 J.F., supra note 9; J.S., Docket No. 16-1240 (issued December 1, 2016); supra note 5 at Chapter 2.1602.5(a) 

(February 2016).

23 Supra note 17.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 14, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 10, 2019

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board