United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

El Reno, OK, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1952

Issued: April 24, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 14, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 26, 2018 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated June 18, 2018, 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.

ISSUE

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

an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing representative.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 25, 2018 appellant then a 57-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a left-upper 

extremity injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he sustained an injury while in the performance 

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

of duty on March 31, 2018 when he was assigned to a route using his personal vehicle, which 

required left-handed driving for the entire shift.2 He stopped working on April 3, 2018. 

In a narrative statement dated April 26, 2018, appellant explained that he previously injured 

the left radius of his wrist in a slip and fall injury at work on November 20, 2017. He indicated 

that he underwent surgery, which included the placement of metal plates and 13 screws in his 

radius and wrist, to repair multiple breaks and a dislocated ulna. Appellant noted that he returned 

to full-duty work on approximately March 8, 2018. He indicated that on March 31, 2018 he was 

assigned a route that required using his personal vehicle and left-handed driving throughout his 

entire work shift. At approximately mid-day appellant felt something pop in his arm. Appellant

subsequently went to the physician and upon examination was advised that the bone in his injured 

arm was still flexible and the metal plate flexed and bent until it failed. 

OWCP received an undated witness statement from appellant’s supervisor, Postmaster 

K.K., who indicated that appellant had not mentioned that his wrist was hurting on April 3, 2018. 

K.K. indicated that appellant notified him on April 5, 2018 that his arm was hurting and he went 

to the emergency room on April 6, 2018 where he discovered that a metal plate in his arm had 

been broken. 

In a May 14, 2018 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of his

claim. It advised him of the type of additional medical evidence needed to establish his claim for 

a traumatic injury. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. 

In a letter dated May 9, 2018, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim

alleging that he did not have a new injury and that his condition was a continuation of a prior injury 

to his wrist. It also noted that he had not submitted any medical evidence supporting causal 

relationship. 

A May 31, 2018 witness statement from a coworker, R.M., indicated that on May 28, 2018 

at approximately 9:30 a.m. he had observed appellant performing yardwork, but he had not been 

able to photograph his observation.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted two duty status reports (Form CA-17) dated 

May 9 and June 6, 2018, physical therapy notes, and state workers’ compensation form reports 

including one signed by Dr. Zak Knutson, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, dated 

May 9, 2018.

By decision dated June 18, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish a valid medical diagnosis from a qualified 

physician in connection with his March 31, 2018 employment injury. It concluded, therefore, that 

he had failed to establish the medical component of fact of injury. 

 

2 Appellant has a previously accepted claim for a November 20, 2017 employment injury, assigned OWCP File 

No. xxxxx847, which has been accepted for the conditions of left wrist contusion and left-sided fracture of the lower 

end of the radius initial encounter closed fracture. 
3

Appellant timely requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of 

Hearings and Review on July 16, 2018. 

Appellant further submitted physical therapy notes and medical reports in support of his 

claim including a Form CA-17 report dated August 15, 2018 and a narrative report dated 

November 28, 2017 from Dr. Knutson.

In an October 12, 2018 notice, OWCP’s hearing representative notified appellant that a 

telephonic hearing was scheduled for December 14, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Standard 

Time (EST). The notice included a toll free number to call and passcode to participate in the 

telephonic hearing. OWCP instructed appellant to “call the toll free number listed below and when 

prompted, enter the pass code also listed below.” It mailed the notice to his last known address of 

record. Appellant did not make an appearance and no request for postponement of the hearing was 

made. 

By decision dated December 26, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative found that 

appellant had failed to appear at the oral hearing and had abandoned his request. The hearing 

representative indicated that appellant received a 30-day advance notice of the hearing scheduled 

for December 14, 2018 and found that there was no evidence that he had contacted OWCP either 

prior to or subsequent to the scheduled hearing to request a postponement or explain his failure to 

appear. 

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.3 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 days before the 

scheduled date.4 OWCP has the burden of proving that it mailed notice of the scheduled hearing 

to a claimant.5 Section 10.622(f) of OWCP regulations provide that a claimant who fails to appear 

at a scheduled hearing may request in writing within 10 days after the date set for the hearing that 

another hearing be scheduled.6 Where good cause for failure to appear is shown, another hearing 

will be scheduled and conducted by teleconference. The failure of the claimant to request another 

hearing within 10 days, or the failure of the claimant to appear at the second scheduled hearing 

without good cause shown, shall constitute abandonment of the request for a hearing. Where good 

cause is shown for failure to appear at the second scheduled hearing, review of the matter will 

proceed as a review of the written record.7 Where it has been determined that a claimant has 

 

3

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

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.617(b).

5 A.R., Docket No. 19-1691 (issued February24, 2020).

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.622(f).

7

Id.
4

abandoned his or her right to a hearing, OWCP will issue a formal decision finding that the 

claimant abandoned the request for a hearing.8

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned his request for 

an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing representative.

The record establishes that, on October 12, 2018 in response to appellant’s timely request 

for an oral hearing, a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review properly mailed 

a notice of the scheduled telephonic hearing to be held on December 14, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. EST. 

The hearing notice was mailed to appellant’s last known address of record and provided 

instructions on how to participate. Appellant failed to call in for the scheduled hearing using the 

provided telephone number. He did not request a postponement or provide an explanation to 

OWCP for his failure to attend the hearing within 10 days of the scheduled hearing. The Board 

thus finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned his request for a telephonic 

hearing.9

On appeal appellant assertsthat he was unable to appear for the December 14, 2018 hearing 

because he serves as the caregiver for his mother, who suffers from Alzheimer’s-like dementia,

and circumstances separated him from the materials needed to call and appear at the scheduled 

hearing. However, there is no evidence of record that he requested a postponement or provided 

this explanation to OWCP within 10 days of the scheduled hearing.10 The Board, therefore, finds 

that appellant abandoned his request for an oral hearing.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned his request for 

an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing representative.

11

 

8 A.J., Docket No. 18-0830 (issued January 10, 2019); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, 

Hearings and Reviews of the Written Record, Chapter 2.1601.6(g) (October 2011).

9

Id.

10 See R.S., Docket No. 19-1484 (issued January 13, 2020) (where the Board found that appellant had abandoned 

his request for a May 21, 2019 oral hearing after his mother had been hospitalized on May 9, 2019, because there was 

no evidence that he hadprovided this information to OWCP within 10 days of the scheduled hearing).

11 Upon return of the case file OWCP should consider administratively combining the present claim with appellant’s 

accepted left-upper extremity claim in OWCP File No. xxxxxx847. 
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 26, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 24, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board