United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SANDHILLS POST 

OFFICE, Columbia, SC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0236

Issued: August 22, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Wayne Johnson, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

On November 9, 2018 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a May 29, 

2018 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 19-0236.

On August 27, 2014 appellant, then a 60-year-old rural letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that her hip and back problems were caused by her 

employment duties. 

By decision dated December 1, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between the diagnosed 

medical conditions and the accepted employment factors. On January 21, 2015 it received 

appellant’s January 7, 2015 request for an oral hearing. OWCP, by decision dated February 23, 

2015, denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing as it found her request to be untimely. It noted 

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

that the issues in the case could equally well be addressed by requesting reconsideration and 

submitting evidence not previously considered in support of her claim. 

Appellant requested reconsideration on April 14, 2015. OWCP, by decision dated 

April 29, 2015, denied modification finding the evidence she submitted was irrelevant to the 

underlying issue of causal relationship. 

On July 1, 2015 appellant again requested reconsideration. By decision dated 

December 14, 2015, it denied modification finding that the weight of the medical opinion evidence 

rested with the well-rationalized opinion of Dr. Chason S. Hayes, a second opinion Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon. Appellant again filed a request for reconsideration on March 15, 2016. By 

decision dated April 5, 2016 OWCP reviewed the merits of her claim, but denied modification of 

the December 14, 2015 decision. 

Appellant again filed a request for reconsideration on September 28, 2016. By decision 

dated January 20, 2017, OWCP denied modification finding that the additional evidence she had

submitted was of insufficient probative value to warrant modification.

On May 9, 2018 OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration. By decision 

dated May 29, 2018, it denied reconsideration finding that she had failed to submit medical 

evidence with her request or raise a new or relevant argument. 

Section 10.607(a) of the implementing regulations provides that an application for 

reconsideration must be received within one year of the date of OWCP’s last merit decision for 

which review is sought.2 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).3 The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that 

appellant’s request for reconsideration was untimely filed as it was not received until May 9, 2018, 

which is more than one year from the January 20, 2017 merit decision. 

OWCP will consider an untimely application only if the application demonstrates clear 

evidence of error on the part of its most recent decision. The application must establish, on its 

face, that such decision was erroneous.4 The standard utilized by OWCP in its May 29, 2018 

decision is appropriate only for timely reconsideration requests. Because appellant filed an 

untimely reconsideration request, the case will be remanded to OWCP for application of the correct 

standard for reviewing untimely reconsideration requests, the clear evidence of error standard.5 

After such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue an appropriate decision. 

Accordingly, 

 

2 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).

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

4

Id. at § 10.607. See also C.B., Docket No. 17-0933 (issued July 17, 2017); A.B., Docket No. 15-0521 (issued 

June 13, 2016).

5

Id. at § 10.606(b).
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 29, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further action consistent with 

this order of the Board. 

Issued: August 22, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board