United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Clementon, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1882

Issued: April 1, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 11, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 6, 2019 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated February 26, 2019, 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 January 10, 2019 appellant, then a 48-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date he injured his left knee while in the performance of 

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

duty. He explained that, a dog appeared and while he was returning to his truck to avoid it, he 

stepped on a branch and strained his left knee. On the reverse side of the claim form appellant’s 

supervisor, K.R., contended that appellant’s injury was caused by his own misconduct because he 

failed to follow the employing establishment’s safety procedures when approached by the dog. 

Appellant stopped work on the date of injury. 

On the first page of a January 10, 2019 authorization for examination and/or treatment 

(Form CA-16), K.R. described appellant’s injury as a strained left knee and indicated that there 

was doubt that his injury was sustained in the performance of duty. 

In a medical report of even date, Dr. Matthew Wakeley, Board-certified in emergency 

medicine, evaluated appellant due to the pain in his left knee. Based on a January 10, 2019 x-ray 

of appellant’s left knee that, contained no acute findings, he diagnosed appellant with a left knee 

sprain and provided him with treatment instructions. In a medical note of even date, Victoria 

Dykes, a registered nurse, advised that appellant may return to work when cleared by a family 

physician or specialist. 

In a January 14, 2019 order form, Eric Drennen, a physician assistant, ordered a magnetic 

resonance imaging scan of appellant’s left knee and noted an assessment of a rupture of the anterior 

cruciate ligament (ACL) of the left knee. In a medical note of even date, he recorded a diagnosis 

of a tendon strain and possible ACL injury. Mr. Drennen checked a box marked “yes” indicating 

that appellant’s injury was causally related to his January 10, 2019 injury. In a January 14, 2019 

duty status report (Form CA-17), he diagnosed a left ACL sprain and a left knee sprain and 

described the January 10, 2019 injury as a possible ACL tear. Mr. Drennen opined that appellant

was unable to perform his regular work duties. 

In a January 23, 2019 development letter, OWCP noted that it had not received evidence 

sufficient to support appellant’s traumatic injury claim. It advised him of the type of evidence 

necessary to establish his claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion regarding the 

circumstances of the January 10, 2019 employment incident. OWCP also requested a narrative 

medical report from appellant’s treating physician, which contained a detailed description of 

findings and a diagnosis, explaining how the alleged work incident caused, contributed to, or 

aggravated appellant’s medical condition. It afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence. 

In a January 10, 2019 emergency medical services report, appellant recounted the incident 

that day in which he was delivering mail and a dog began to chase him. He felt his knee pop when 

he tripped over a fallen tree branch and fell to the ground. 

By decision dated February 26, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the events occurred as described. It explained 

that he did not provide the requested statements to explain the circumstances surrounding the 

alleged January 10, 2019 incident. 

On March 22, 2019 appellant timely requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. In an attached statement, he explained that on 

January 10, 2019 as he was delivering mail, a big, growling, dog came out of the woods on the 
3

side of the house. Appellant began to slowly walk backwards, toward his truck, with his mailbag 

in front of him and his spray in hand, when he stepped on a branch and felt a sharp pain in his left 

leg. The dog eventually ran back into the woods. Appellant reported that he completed two more 

deliveries before he began to notice that he was having trouble bending his left knee and 

subsequently called his supervisor to report his injury. 

In a June 19, 2019 letter, OWCP notified appellant that a video teleconference hearing was 

scheduled for July 25, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). It also provided the address 

of the video teleconference location. OWCP’s hearing representative mailed the notice to 

appellant’s last known address of record. Appellant did not appear for the hearing. 

By decision dated August 6, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative determined that 

appellant had received a 30-day advance written notice of the hearing scheduled for July 25, 2019

and that he failed to appear. The hearing representative further noted that there was no indication 

in the record that appellant contacted OWCP prior to the hearing date to request a postponement 

or provided an explanation to OWCP for his failure to appear at the hearing within 10 days of the 

scheduled hearing. Consequently, appellant was deemed to have abandoned his request for an oral 

hearing. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

A claimant who has received a final adverse decision by 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.2 Unless otherwise directed in writing by the claimant, OWCP’s 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.3 OWCP has the burden of proving that 

it properly mailed to a claimant and any representative of record a notice of a scheduled hearing. 4

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. 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.5

 

2

20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a).

3

Id. at § 10.617(b).

4 M.R., Docket No. 18-1643 (issued March 1, 2019); T.P., Docket No. 15-0806 (issued September 11, 2015); 

Michelle R. Littlejohn, 42 ECAB 463 (1991).

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.622(f); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Hearings and Review of the Written 

Record, Chapter 2.1601.6(g) (October 2011); see also A.J., Docket No. 18-0830 (issued January10, 2019); L.B.,

Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018).
4

ANALYSIS

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

an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing representative.

Following OWCP’s February 26, 2019 decision, appellant filed a timely request for an oral 

hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. In a June 19, 2019 

letter, OWCP’s hearing representative notified appellant that OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and 

Review had scheduled a video teleconference for July 25, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. EST. The hearing 

representative properly mailed the hearing notice to appellant’s last known address of record6 and 

provided instructions on how to participate. There is no evidence of nondelivery of the hearing 

notice. Appellant, however, failed to appear for the scheduled hearing and 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.7 The Board thus finds that OWCP properly determined that he

abandoned his request for a telephonic hearing.8

On appeal appellant explained that the reason he did not appear for the July 25, 2019 

hearing was because he could not get the day off from work. As noted above, he received proper 

notice of the scheduled hearing and did not timely request a postponement of the hearing or provide 

the basis for his failure to participate within 10 days after the date set for the hearing as was 

required.9 Thus, the Board 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.10

 

6 Absent evidence to the contrary, a letter properly addressed and mailed in the ordinary course of business is 

presumed to have been received. This is known as the mailbox rule. See C.Y., Docket No. 18-0263 (issued 

September 14, 2018). 

7 E.S., Docket No. 19-0567 (issued August 5, 2019).

8 A.J., supra note 5.

9

Supra note 7.

10 The Board notes that the employing establishment issued a FormCA-16. A completed FormCA-16 authorization 

may constitute a contract for payment of medical expenses to a medical facility or physician, when properly executed. 

The form creates a contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee directly, to pay for the cost of the 

examination or treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim. See 20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c); J.G., Docket No.

17-1062 (issued February 13, 2018); Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 6, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 1, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board