United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Las Vegas, NV, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0298

Issued: August 6, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 22, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 15, 2019 nonmerit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The most recent merit 

decision was a decision of the Board dated May 5, 2017, which became final after 30 days of 

issuance, and is not subject to further review.1 As there was no merit decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days from the filing of this appeal, pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board lacks jurisdiction over the merits of 

this case.

 

1 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d); see M.S., Docket No. 18-0222 (issued June 21, 2018); J.P., Docket No. 17-0053 (issued 

May 23, 2017); R.M., Docket No. 14-1213 (issued October 15, 2014).

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.3 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

in the Board’s prior decisions are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as 

follows.

On February 12, 2013 appellant, then a 27-year-old postal support employee clerk, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging an injury to his left shoulder on September 6, 2012 

after lifting and pitching parcels into designated locations while in the performance of duty. 

By decision dated March 29, 2013, OWCP denied the claim, finding that, while the 

September 6, 2012 employment incident had occurred as alleged, the medical evidence of record 

was insufficient to establish left shoulder, cervical, and/or thoracic conditions causally related to 

the accepted employment incident. 

On May 9, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted additional medical 

evidence. 

By decision dated August 2, 2013, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. 

On May 20, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted additional evidence 

in support of his claim. 

By decision dated August 29, 2014, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. 

Appellant, through counsel, then appealed to the Board. 

By decision dated April 16, 2015, the Board affirmed OWCP’s August 29, 2014 decision 

finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that appellant’s medical 

conditions were caused or aggravated by the accepted September 6, 2012 employment incident. 

On April 12, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted additional medical 

evidence. 

By decision dated June 15, 2016, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. It found 

that the evidence submitted did not explain how the claimed work factors would have resulted in 

the diagnosed conditions. Appellant, through counsel, then appealed to the Board on 

July 19, 2016. 

 

3 Docket No. 19-0604 (issued September 13, 2019); Docket No. 16-1518 (issued May 5, 2017); Docket No. 15-

0256 (issued April 16, 2015).
3

By decision dated May 5, 2017, the Board affirmed OWCP’s June 15, 2016 decision again 

finding that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish causal relationship.4 

On August 22, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration. 

By decision dated November 20, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration finding that the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant a merit review. 

OWCP subsequently received a March 29, 2018 report from Dr. John Champlin, a Boardcertified family practitioner, who opined that appellant’s diagnosed conditions of a compression 

fracture of the cervical spine, left shoulder anterior labral tear, left shoulder joint derangement, 

acquired deformity of the spine, and left shoulder muscle spasms were causally related to lifting 

and pitching mail at work on September 6, 2012. 

On June 6, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration arguing that his request for 

reconsideration was not actually untimely because it had been mailed on April 20, 2018 from 

Citrus Height, California, by certified Priority Mail, to San Francisco, California on 

April 24, 2018. 

By decision dated August 29, 2018, OWCP summarily denied appellant’s request for 

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

Appellant subsequently appealed to the Board on March 21, 2019 and resubmitted the 

March 29, 2018 report from Dr. Champlin. 

By decision dated September 13, 2019, the Board set aside OWCP’s prior August 29, 2018 

decision and remanded the case for an appropriate decision on appellant’s untimely request for 

reconsideration because it had not discharged its responsibility to set forth findings of fact and a 

clear statement of reasons for its disposition. 

By decision dated October 15, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s June 6, 2018 request for 

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

It noted that, while he had submitted evidence, the evidence was a package that he mailed via

certified Priority Mail to a San Francisco, California address on April 20, 2018. OWCP further 

noted, however, that requests for reconsideration were to be sent to its central mailroom in London, 

Kentucky. Therefore, the mail sent to San Francisco, California, which included appellant’s 

request for reconsideration, was forwarded to London, Kentucky for processing and was not 

received until June 6, 2018. OWCP also explained that, while appellant requested reconsideration 

of the Board’s May 5, 2017 decision, it did not have jurisdiction over Board decisions and 

 

4 The Board notes that OWCP is not authorized to review Board decisions. Board decisions are not subject to 

review except by the Board and they become final after 30 days. Although the May 5, 2017 Board decision was the 

last merit decision of record, OWCP’s June 15, 2016 denial of modification is the appropriate subject of possible 

modification by OWCP. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
4

therefore, was only able to conduct a limited review of its May 15, 20165 decision denying 

modification of its prior decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

merit review.6 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.7 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).8 Imposition of this one-year filing limitation does 

not constitute an abuse of discretion.9

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

a claimant’s application for review is untimely filed, it must nevertheless undertake a limited 

review to determine whether it demonstrates clear evidence of error.10 If an application 

demonstrates clear evidence of error, OWCP will reopen the case for merit review.11

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 

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

produce a contrary conclusion. 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. To demonstrate clear evidence 

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

 

5 This appears to be an error and should have read June 15, 2016 as there is no OWCP decision of record dated 

May 15, 2016. 

6 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); L.W., Docket No. 18-1475 (issued February 7, 2019); Y.S., Docket No. 08-0440 (issued 

March 16, 2009).

7 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).

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

9 R.L., Docket No. 18-0496 (issued January 9, 2019); E.R., Docket No. 09-0599 (issued June 3, 2009); Leon D. 

Faidley, Jr., 41 ECAB 104 (1989).

10 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); G.G., Docket No. 18-1074 (issued January 7, 2019); Charles J. Prudencio, 41 ECAB 

499, 501-02 (1990).

11 U.C., Docket No. 19-1753 (issued June 10, 2020); M.L., Docket No. 09-0956 (issued April 15, 2010). See also

id. at § 10.607(b); supra note 8 at Chapter 2.1602.5 (February 2016).
5

weight of the evidence in favor of the claimant and raise a substantial question as to the correctness 

of OWCP’s decision.12

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

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

an error (for example, proof that a schedule award was miscalculated). 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.13 

The Board makes an independent determination of whether a claimant has demonstrated clear 

evidence of error on the part of OWCP.14

ANALYSIS

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

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

OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration on June 6, 2018, which was more 

than one year after the Board’s May 5, 2017 merit decision which had affirmed OWCP’s June 15, 

2016 decision. The one-year period for requesting reconsideration began on the date of the original 

OWCP decision, but the right to reconsideration within one year also accompanies any subsequent 

merit decision on the issues, including any merit decision by the Board.15 As appellant’s request 

was untimely filed, he must demonstrate clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP.16

The Board finds that appellant has not demonstrated clear evidence of error. The 

underlying issue is whether OWCP properly denied his traumatic injury claim because the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that his left shoulder, cervical, and/or thoracic spine 

conditions were causally related to the accepted September 6, 2012 employment incident. The 

Board finds that the arguments and evidence submitted by appellant in support of his request for 

reconsideration did not raise a substantial question as to the correctness of the denial of his claim.

In support of his request for reconsideration, appellant submitted a statement dated June 6, 

2018 arguing that he had sustained multiple injuries on February 12, 2013 due to lifting and 

pitching parcels into designated locations while in the performance of duty. The Board finds that 

his narrative statement merely reiterates the arguments previously of record. Appellant also

submitted a medical report from Dr. Champlin dated March 29, 2018. The Board finds that

Dr. Champlin’s report does not demonstrate clear evidence of error because it does not 

demonstrate that OWCP committed an error in denying appellant’s traumatic injury claim, nor 

raise a substantial question as to the correctness of OWCP’s decision. Thus, the Board finds that 

 

12 J.W., Docket No. 18-0703 (issued November 14, 2018); Robert G. Burns, 57 ECAB 657 (2006).

13 J.S., Docket No. 16-1240 (issued December 1, 2016); supra note 8 at Chapter 2.1602.5(a) (February 2016).

14 D.S., Docket No. 17-0407 (issued May 24, 2017).

15 Supra note 8 at Chapter 2.1602.4a (February 2016); see also U.C., supra note 11.

16 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b).
6

the evidence and arguments submitted on reconsideration do not demonstrate clear evidence of 

error on the part of OWCP in its June 15, 2016 merit decision.17

The term clear evidence of error is intended to represent a difficult standard. None of the 

evidence submitted demonstrates on its face that OWCP committed an error in denying appellant’s 

claim for a traumatic injury in its June 15, 2016 decision. Appellant has not otherwise submitted 

evidence of sufficient probative value to raise a substantial question as to the correctness of the 

Board’s May 5, 2017 decision affirming OWCP’s June 15, 2016 merit decision. Thus, the 

evidence is insufficient to demonstrate clear evidence of error.18 

For these reasons, 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.

CONCLUSION

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

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

 

17 W.R., Docket No. 18-1042 (issued February 12, 2019).

18 S.D., Docket No. 17-1450 (issued January 8, 2018).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 15, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 6, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, 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