United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Merrifield, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0966

Issued: September 18, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 4, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 28, 2018 nonmerit 

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

elapsed since the last merit decision, dated May 11, 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 determined that appellant abandoned her request for 

a telephonic hearing before an OWCP hearing representative.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 9, 2018 appellant, then a 24-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic injury

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on March 27, 2018 she sustained head, left hand, and left leg 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

injuries when a bus sideswiped her vehicle as she was securing her seatbelt while in the 

performance of duty. She first received medical care and stopped work on the date of the incident. 

By development letter dated April 9, 2018, OWCP advised appellant of the factual and 

medical deficiencies of her claim and instructed her as to the additional information necessary to 

establish her claim. It also provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 

30 days to respond.

OWCP thereafter received medical evidence documenting appellant’s treatment from 

March 28 through May 8, 2018. However, no response to the development questionnaire was 

received.

By decision dated May 11, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

that the evidence of record failed to establish that the March 27, 2018 employment incident 

occurred as alleged. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish 

an injury as defined by FECA.

On June 7, 2018 appellant requested a telephonic hearing with a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review. In support of her claim, she submitted additional medical 

evidence.

By letter dated October 11, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative notified her that in 

response to her request, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review had scheduled a telephonic 

hearing for November 15, 2018 at 11:15 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). The hearing notice 

was mailed to appellant’s last known address2and she was provided with a toll-free number to call 

and the appropriate passcode. Appellant did not, however, call in for the hearing at the appointed 

time. She also did not contact OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review within 10 days thereafter 

to explain her failure to appear.

By decision dated November 28, 2018, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review

determined that appellant had abandoned her request for a telephonic 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.3 Unless otherwise directed in writing by the claimant, the hearing 

representative will mail a notice of the time and place of the hearing to the claimant and any 

 

2 By letter dated June 11, 2018, OWCP acknowledged appellant’s change of address.

3 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a).
3

representative at least 30 days before the scheduled date.4 OWCP has the burden of proving that 

it properly mailed to a claimant and any representative of record a notice of a scheduled hearing.5

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.

6

ANALYSIS

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

a telephonic hearing before an OWCP hearing representative.7

Following OWCP’s May 11, 2018 initial decision denying appellant’s traumatic injury

claim, she filed a timely request for a telephonic hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review. By letter dated October 11, 2018, a hearing representative 

notified appellant that, in response to her request, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review had 

scheduled a telephonic hearing for November 15, 2018 at 11:15 a.m., EST. OWCP properly 

mailed the hearing notice to appellant’s last known address of record.

8

 Appellant failed to call in 

for the scheduled hearing using the provided telephone number. She did not request a 

postponement or provide an explanation to OWCP for her failure to attend the hearing within 10 

days of the scheduled hearing.9 The Board thus finds that OWCP properly determined that 

appellant abandoned her request for a telephonic hearing.10

CONCLUSION

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

a telephonic hearing before an OWCP hearing representative. 

 

4

Id. at § 10.617(b).

5 W.H., Docket No. 18-0369 (issued November 29, 2018). 

6 20 C.F.R. § 10.622(f); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Hearings and Reviews of the Written 

Record, Chapter 2.1601.6(g) (October 2011). See also A.J., Docket No. 18-0830 (issued January 10, 2019); L.B., 

Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018).

7 M.R., Docket No. 18-1643 (issued March 1, 2019).

8 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 called the mailbox rule. See C.Y., Docket No. 18-0263 (issued 

September 14, 2018). Appellant did not submit evidence of nondelivery of OWCP’s October 11, 2018 hearing notice 

such that the presumption of receipt would be rebutted.

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

10 A.J., supra note 6.
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 28, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 18, 2019

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board