United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.K., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Los Angeles, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1474

Issued: March 3, 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 June 28, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 22, 2019 nonmerit decision 

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

from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated January 23, 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 to review the merits of this case.

ISSUE

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

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 30, 2017 appellant, then a 39-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained an injury or medical condition due to factors 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

of her federal employment. She noted that she first became aware of her condition on March 1, 

2016 and first realized that her condition was caused or aggravated by factors of her federal 

employment on August 2, 2017. Appellant indicated that documentation and a statement were

pending when asked to explain the nature of her disease or illness and the relationship of her 

condition to her federal employment. She did not stop work. 

An August 10, 2017 duty status report (Form CA-17), with an illegible signature, provided 

that appellant was experiencing pain in her right arm and shoulder and diagnosed a rotator cuff 

injury. 

In an August 19, 2017 e-mail, appellant’s supervisor, C.G., indicated that appellant was 

constantly videotaping herself and another manager and that she had been doing so over the past 

week. She noted that appellant refused to perform her work duties and ignored instructions to do 

so as she explained that she was being harassed and that she felt unsafe. C.G. described appellant’s 

behavior as “completely uncontrollable and delusional in her perception of reality.” She explained 

that she placed appellant on off-duty/nonpay status for insubordination. In a response to C.G.’s 

e-mail, R.F., provided that a manager had been recording appellant and that her placement on 

off-duty/nonpay status was improper and not valid and should be rescinded immediately. 

In a development letter dated December 5, 2017, OWCP informed appellant that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish her occupational disease claim. It noted that she 

had not indicated the nature of her condition nor had she explained the relationship to her federal 

employment. OWCP advised appellant of the type of medical and factual evidence needed and 

provided a questionnaire for her completion. It afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence. OWCP received no further evidence. 

By decision dated January 23, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that she sustained an injury in the 

performance of duty, as no clarifying statement regarding the duties she believed that caused or 

aggravated her condition had been submitted. It also noted that she had not submitted medical 

evidence containing a medical diagnosis in connection with her claim. As such, OWCP concluded 

that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

Appellant submitted medical evidence dated from March 1, 2016 to August 8, 2017 from 

multiple physicians which detailed her symptoms of anxiety, gastrointestinal issues, abdominal 

pain, and migraines and tension headaches related to stress she received from her supervisor at 

work. The medical reports noted her diagnosis of acute stress disorder. 

In an April 5, 2017 witness statement, A.H., appellant’s coworker, reported that on April 3, 

2017 he saw a supervisor approach appellant, get face-to-face with her and start yelling at her 

before walking away. In a statement of that same date, C.C., another coworker, who provided that

on April 3, 2017 he heard the same supervisor yell “liar” or “big liar.” He explained that he was 

not sure who the supervisor was talking to, but heard the statement very clearly. 

In an August 8, 2017 e-mail, appellant provided a partially legible witness statement from 

D.E., her coworker. D.E. provided that on different occasions he witnessed management hide 

behind all-purpose containers and record her. He explained that management instructed appellant
3

to not greet other carriers. D.E. also explained that he has observed management distract her by 

setting up their base of operation next to her. He provided that he observed visible stress on 

appellant based on her face and body language. 

In a September 12, 2017 letter, appellant described multiple instances dating from March 5, 

2016 to August 20, 2017 in which she alleged that she was harassed by management and caused 

to experience stressful situations. She indicated that the behavior of her managers was 

inappropriate and illegal and was the direct trigger for her acute stress disorder and anxiety. 

Appellant also described an August 2, 2017 incident with management and a postmaster in which 

she sustained an injury to her shoulder and another anxiety attack when a satchel weighing in 

excess of 35 pounds was dropped on her shoulder.2 

In an October 5, 2017 statement to management, appellant indicated that she submitted her 

Form CA-2 to management on August 30, 2017 and that it changed the answers and personal 

information on the form before submitting it to labor relations. She requested that the accusation 

be investigated. 

In an October 23, 2017 statement to her management, appellant explained that it was her 

third request for a copy of management’s portion of her August 30, 2017 Form CA-2. She further 

explained that it had been over 45 days and she had not received confirmation from OWCP that it 

had received her claim. 

On September 25, 2018 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. In an attached statement, she asserted that her 

physicians and all of her medical examinations had made it abundantly clear that her physical 

ailments were a direct result of her being a mail carrier for 20 years. Appellant explained that she 

believed that management interfered with the approval of her claim for personal reasons. She

referenced an August 2, 2017 traumatic injury that aggravated a worsening right shoulder 

condition she developed from carrying her satchel for 20 years. Appellant also explained that the 

evidence submitted by her manager was disciplinary action decided in her favor and 

documentation of events that occurred before her date of injury.

3

 

By decision dated November 5, 2018, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review denied 

appellant’s hearing request, finding that she was not entitled to a hearing as a matter of right as she 

did not submit her hearing request within 30 days of OWCP’s January 23, 2018 decision. In 

exercising its discretion, it determined that the issue in the case could be equally well addressed 

with a request for reconsideration, accompanied by additional evidence not previously of record 

establishing that she sustained an injury in the performance of duty, as alleged. 

 

2 Appellant filed a separate claim for a traumatic injury (Form CA-1) claiming a right shoulder injury from the 

August 2, 2017 employment incident. That claim was assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx509.

3 The Board notes that the attached statement from appellant referenced her separate Form CA-1 in relation to an 

August 2, 2017 employment incident and not her Form CA-2.
4

On April 15, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s January 23, 2018

decision.4 

By decision dated April 22, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

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

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

merit review.5 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.6 The one-year period for requesting reconsideration begins 

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.7 Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date (i.e., the “received date” in 

OWCP’s Integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation System (IFECS)).8 The Board has found 

that the imposition of the one-year limitation does not constitute an abuse of the discretionary 

authority granted OWCP under section 8128(a) of FECA.9

OWCP may not deny a request for reconsideration solely because the application was not 

timely filed. When a request for reconsideration is untimely filed, it must nevertheless undertake 

a limited review to determine whether the application demonstrates clear evidence of error.10 

OWCP regulations and procedures provide that OWCP will reopen a claimant’s case for merit 

review, notwithstanding the one-year filing limitation set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a), if the 

claimant’s request demonstrates clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP.11

To demonstrate clear evidence of error, the evidence submitted must not only be of 

sufficient probative value to create a conflicting medical opinion or establish a clear procedural 

error, but must be of sufficient probative value to shift the weight of the evidence in favor of the 

claimant and raise a substantial question as to the correctness of OWCP’s decision.12 The Board 

 

4 Appellant’s appeal form identified a July 18, 2018 decision; however, OWCP did not issue a decision on this date. 

The only merit decision of record was the decision issued on January 23, 2018.

5 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).

6 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).

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

8

Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4(b) (February 2016).

9 See R.L., Docket No. 18-0496 (issued January 9, 2019).

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

11 Id. at § 10.607(b); supra note 7 at Chapter 2.1602.5(a) (February 2016).

12 G.G., supra note 10.
5

notes that clear evidence of error is intended to represent a difficult standard.13 Evidence that does 

not raise a substantial question concerning the correctness of OWCP’s decision is insufficient to 

demonstrate clear evidence of error.14 It is not enough merely to establish that the evidence could 

be construed so as to produce a contrary conclusion.15 This entails a limited review by OWCP of 

the evidence previously of record and whether the new evidence demonstrates clear error on the 

part of OWCP.16 In this regard, the Board will limit its focus to a review of how the newly 

submitted evidence bears on the prior evidence of record.17 The Board makes an independent 

determination as to whether a claimant has demonstrated clear evidence of error on the part of 

OWCP.18

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant’s request for 

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

A request for reconsideration must be received within one year of the date of OWCP’s 

decision for which review is sought.19 As appellant’s request for reconsideration was not received 

until April 15, 2019, more than one year after the issuance of its January 23, 2018 merit decision, 

it was untimely filed. Consequently, she must demonstrate clear evidence of error by OWCP in

its January 23, 2018 decision.20

The Board further finds that appellant has not demonstrated clear evidence of error on the 

part of OWCP in issuing its January 23, 2018 decision. Appellant failed to submit the type of 

positive, precise, and explicit evidence which manifests on its face that OWCP committed an error 

in its decision.21 The evidence and argument she submitted failed to raise a substantial question 

concerning the correctness of OWCP’s decision.22 

OWCP denied the employee’s claim on a factual basis, i.e., the failure to establish a 

compensable employment factor. Upon reconsideration, appellant did not provide additional 

argument asserting the grounds for which reconsideration was requested. As found above, the new 

 

13 M.P., Docket No. 19-0200 (issued June 14, 2019); R.L., supra note 9.

14 E.B., Docket No. 18-1091 (issued December 28, 2018).

15 J.W., Docket No. 18-0703 (issued November 14, 2018).

16 P.L., Docket No. 18-0813 (issued November 20, 2018).

17 A.F., 59 ECAB 714 (2008), D.G., 59 ECAB 455 (2008).

18 W.R., Docket No. 19-0438 (issued July 5, 2019); C.Y., Docket No. 18-0693 (issued December 7, 2018).

19 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).

20 Id. at § 10.607(b); S.M., Docket No. 16-0270 (issued April 26, 2016).

21 S.W., Docket No. 18-0126 (issued May 14, 2019); Robert G. Burns, 57 ECAB 657 (2006).

22 Id.
6

evidence submitted after OWCP’s initial decision also failed to explain or raise a substantial 

question as to the correctness of OWCP’s January 23, 2018 decision. Appellant provided a 

September 12, 2017 letter in which she described multiple interactions with her management that 

she believed caused her acute stress disorder and anxiety. She also submitted an April 5, 2017 

witness statement from A.H. stating that on April 3, 2017 she saw a supervisor get face-to-face 

with appellant and yell before walking away. A statement from C.C. provided that he heard the 

same supervisor yell “liar” or “big liar,” but was unsure of who the supervisor was talking to. An 

August 8, 2017 witness statement from D.E. provided that on different occasions he witnessed 

management distract and record appellant and that he observed visible stress on her from these 

occurrences. Lastly, appellant provided October 5 and 23, 2017 statements to her management 

suggesting that it changed the answers and personal information on her Form CA-2 before 

submitting it to labor relations. 

The Board, however, has reviewed these factual documents and finds that collectively they 

do not, on their face, otherwise demonstrate clear evidence of error in OWCP’s January 23, 2018 

decision. Appellant has not explained how the submission of this evidence raises a substantial 

question concerning the correctness of OWCP’s decision. Her claim was denied because she failed 

to submit any evidence that establishes compensable employment factors that led to a diagnosed 

medical condition. Therefore, this new evidence submitted following the last merit review does 

not show that OWCP erred when it denied appellant’s occupational disease claim.23

Following OWCP’s January 23, 2018 decision, appellant also submitted medical records 

from her treating physicians dated March 1, 2016 to August 8, 2017. These reports detailed her 

symptoms of anxiety, gastrointestinal issues, abdominal pain, migraines and tension headaches 

related to stress resulting from interactions with her supervisor at work, and noted her diagnosis 

of acute stress disorder. The Board finds, however, that the submission of this medical evidence

does not demonstrate clear evidence of error in OWCP’s January 23, 2018 decision. In her original 

claim, appellant failed to provide sufficient factual evidence establishing the factors of her federal 

employment that caused or contributed to her alleged emotional condition. The medical evidence 

of record provided after OWCP’s January 23, 2018 decision does not demonstrate that OWCP 

erred in its determination that she failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the employment 

factors that led to her alleged condition. As noted, clear evidence of error is intended to represent 

a difficult standard.24 It is not enough to show that evidence could be construed so as to produce 

a contrary conclusion. Instead, the evidence must shift the weight in appellant’s favor.25

The Board finds that appellant’s request for reconsideration does not show on its face that 

OWCP committed error when it found in its January 23, 2018 decision that the employee had not 

established compensable factors of employment. Therefore, OWCP properly determined that she

failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error in its January 23, 2018 decision.

 

23 See S.T., Docket No. 18-0925 (issued June 11, 2019).

24 Supra note 14.

25 M.E., Docket No. 18-1442 (issued April 22, 2019).
7

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.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 22, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 3, 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