United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Houston, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1226

Issued: December 13, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Joseph Baker, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On August 16, 2022 appellant, through her representative,

2 sought an appeal from a 

February 16, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The 

Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-1226.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.3 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

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

Id.

3

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).
2

authority is limited to appeals, which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of 

OWCP’s decision.4

The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final adverse decision of 

OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current appeal. The 180th day 

following the February 16, 2022 decision was Monday, August 15, 2022. As appellant 

electronically filed an appeal with the Board on August 16, 2022, more than 180 days after the 

February 16, 2022 decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1226 is untimely 

filed. The Board is, thus, without jurisdiction to review the appeal.

On appeal appellant’s representative requests that the 180-day time limit for filing an 

appeal be extended “due to medical reasons.” Pursuant to the Board’s Rules of Procedure, “The 

Board maintains discretion to extend the time period for filing an appeal if an applicant 

demonstrates compelling circumstances. Compelling circumstances means circumstances beyond 

the Appellant’s control that prevent the timely filing of an appeal and does not include any delay 

caused by the failure of an individual to exercise due diligence in submitting a notice of appeal.”

5

 

Appellant’s representative only generally asserted medical reasons for a complicating factor that 

prevented the timey filing of the appeal. He has not submitted evidence or argument sufficient to 

establish the inability to file a timely appeal.6 For this reason, the Board finds that this argument 

is insufficient to establish compelling circumstances as contemplated by the Board’s implementing 

regulation.7 Therefore, the appeal will be dismissed.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

8

4

Id. at § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of 

issuance of a decision of OWCP. 

5

Id.; see also L.M., Docket No. 21-1371 (issued October 26, 2021).

6 The Board notes that OWCP’s February 16, 2022 decision specifically advised appellant that an ECAB appeal 

may be filed electronically through ECAB’s electronic filing system (EFS), which was done in this case. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(f).

7

Supra note 4. See L.M., supra note 5; see also S.S. Docket No. 10-1135 (issued June 23, 2010).

8

Id. at § 501.6(d).
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1226 is dismissed.

Issued: December 13, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board