United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.N., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Sayre, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0899

Issued: December 19, 2022

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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 17, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 18, 2021 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’

Compensation Act1(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over 

the merits of this case.

ISSUE

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

merits of her claim, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of 

error.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 16, 2019 appellant, then a 58-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 13, 2018 she sustained an injury when she was

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

unloading her postal vehicle and reaching for packages, and one of the packages became stuck, 

while in the performance of duty. She indicated that she experienced neck and lower back pain. 

Appellant stopped work on the date of the claimed injury.

Appellant submitted reports from health care providers, including a January 22, 2019 duty 

status report (Form CA-17) from a physician assistant with an illegible signature who listed the 

date of injury as November 13, 2018 and diagnosed muscle strain. 

In a February 1, 2019 development letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of 

her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and provided a 

questionnaire for her completion. By separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested 

additional information from the employing establishment. It afforded both parties 30 days to 

submit the necessary evidence.

In a February 11, 2019 response to the provided questionnaire, appellant indicated thatshe 

was injured unloading her postal vehicle in the employing establishment parking lot when she was 

on her knees in the back of her jeep trying to retrieve a large priority package that was stuck behind 

the seat. She advised that she sought a medical appointment with her physician on the day of the 

claimed injury and was seen on November 15, 2018. Appellant explained that she delayed in filing 

the claim because she was not aware she had to file anything at the time of the claimed employment 

incident and thought the employing establishment would handle the matter.

Appellant submitted a January 31, 2019 return to duty report from Dr. Adam Pascoe, a 

Board-certified occupational medicine specialist, who listed the “nature of illness” as lumbar strain

and bilateral sacroiliitis, and recommended work restrictions.

By decision dated March 4, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a November 13, 2018 employment 

incident. Consequently, it found that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as 

defined by FECA.

On March 18, 2019 appellant requested a review of the written record by a representative 

of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

Appellant submitted additional medical evidence in support of her claim, including reports 

from Dr. Pascoe dated January 31 through July 11, 2019. In his January 31, 2019 report,

Dr. Pascoe referenced the November 13, 2018 incident and detailed the findings of his physical 

examination. He diagnosed lumbar strain and bilateral sacroiliac joint dysfunction, as well as 

several conditions he identified as nonwork-related, including lumbar spondylolysis, osteoarthritis, 

psoriatic arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis. Dr. Pascoe noted, “[t]o a reasonable degree of medical 

certainty, her above diagnoses listed as lumbar strain and sacroiliac dysfunction are secondarily 

related to her work environment.”

By decision dated July 22, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative set aside the March 4, 

2019 decision and remanded the case to OWCP for further development. The hearing 

representative found that appellant had established the November 13, 2018 employment incident 

in the form of attempting to lift a heavy package, which became stuck. The hearing representative 

directed OWCP to refer appellant for a second opinion examination to evaluate whether she 
3

sustained a diagnosed condition causally related to the accepted November 13, 2018 employment 

incident.

On January 22, 2020 OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion examination with

Dr. Peter A. Feinstein, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. It requested that Dr. Feinstein 

provide an opinion regarding whether appellant sustained an injury casually related to the accepted 

November 13, 2018 employment incident.

Appellant submitted additional medical evidence in support of her claim, including a 

January 22, 2020 report from Dr. Pascoe who diagnosed bilateral sacroiliac joint dysfunction and 

recommended permanent work restrictions.

In a February 24, 2020 report, Dr. Feinstein discussed appellant’s factual and medical 

history, including the circumstances of the accepted November 13, 2018 employment incident. He 

detailed the findings of his physical examination and found that appellant’s current symptoms were 

related to psoriatic arthritis. Dr. Feinstein concluded that this diagnosed condition was not causally 

related to the accepted November 13, 2018 employment incident, but rather was preexisting in 

nature. 

By decision dated March 27, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a November 13, 

2018 employment injury, finding that the weight of the medical opinion evidence rested with the 

opinion of Dr. Feinstein.

On April 24, 2020 appellant requested a review of the written record by a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. She submitted additional medical evidence in support 

of her claim, including reports from early-2020 of Dr. Pascoe who reported physical examination 

findings and diagnosed work-related lumbar strain and bilateral sacroiliac joint dysfunction.

By decision dated August 6, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the March 27, 

2020 decision. 

In an August 3, 2021 letter received by OWCP on August 4, 2021, appellant requested “an 

extension on my case” because COVID-19 restrictions made it difficult to obtain medical 

evidence. 

In an August 23, 2021 letter received by OWCP the same day, appellant requested 

reconsideration of the March 27, 2020 decision. She argued that OWCP should have accepted her 

claim because she had been approved for disability retirement benefits and she had been found to 

be disabled by the Social Security Administration (SSA).

Appellant submitted a September 16, 2020 report from Dr. Pascoe who reported the 

findings of his physical examination and diagnosed bilateral sacroiliac joint dysfunction, 

subsequent encounter. He noted, “[t]o a reasonable degree of medical certainty, [appellant’s] 

occupation and specifically her mechanism of injury is a competent medical cause of her current 

symptoms. She has a preexisting condition that being psoriatic arthritis.”

By decision dated November 18, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. 
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

merit review.2 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.3 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).4 Imposition of this one-year filing limitation does 

not constitute an abuse of discretion.5

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

When a claimant’s request for reconsideration is untimely filed, it must nevertheless undertake a 

limited review to determine whether it demonstrates clear evidence of error. 6 If a request for 

reconsideration demonstrates clear evidence of error, OWCP will reopen the case for merit 

review.7

To demonstrate clear evidence of error, a claimant must submit evidence relevant to the 

issue which was decided by OWCP.8 The evidence must be positive, precise, and explicit and 

must manifest on its face that OWCP committed an error.9 Evidence that does not raise a 

substantial question concerning the correctness of OWCP’s decision is insufficient to demonstrate 

clear evidence of error.10 It is not enough merely to 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 request for reconsideration bears on the evidence previously of record and 

whether the new evidence demonstrates clear error on the part of OWCP. 11 To demonstrate clear 

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

2

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see also A.B., Docket No. 19-1539 (issued January 27, 2020); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).

3

20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).

4 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4b (September 2020).

5 G.G., Docket No. 18-1072 (issued January 7, 2019); E.R., Docket No. 09-0599 (issued June 3, 2009); LeonD. 

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

6

See 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); M.H.,Docket No. 18-0623 (issued October 4, 2018); Charles J. Prudencio, 41 ECAB 

499 (1990).

7 L.C., Docket No. 18-1407 (issued February 14, 2019); M.L., Docket No. 09-0956 (issued April15, 2010). See

also 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b).

8 A.A., Docket No. 19-1219 (issued December 10, 2019); J.F., Docket No. 18-1802 (issued May 20, 2019); J.D., 

Docket No. 16-1767 (issued January 12, 2017); Dean D. Beets, 43 ECAB 1153 (1992).

9

J.D., Docket No. 19-1836 (issued April6, 2020); Leone N. Travis, 43 ECAB 227 (1999).

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

11 T.N., Docket No. 18-1613 (issued April29, 2020).
5

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

OWCP’s decision.12

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

difficult standard.13 The claimant must present evidence which on its face shows that OWCP made 

an error.14 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.15 The Board makes an independent determination of 

whether a claimant has demonstrated clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP.16

ANALYSIS

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

was untimely filed.

The last merit decision in this case was dated August 6, 2020. Appellant had one year from 

that decision to request reconsideration. As her request for reconsideration was not received by 

OWCP until August 23, 2021, more than one year after issuance of its August 6, 2020 merit 

decision, it was untimely filed. Consequently, appellant must demonstrate clear evidence of error 

by OWCP in its August 6, 2020 decision.

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

On reconsideration, appellant argued that OWCP should have accepted her claim because 

she had been approved for disability retirement benefits and SSA determined she was disabled. 

However, the Board has held that the findings of other administrative bodies regarding the payment

of benefits are not binding on OWCP.

17

 The Board finds, therefore, that this argument does not 

raise a substantial question as to the correctness of OWCP’s August 6, 2020 decision.18

In support of her reconsideration request, appellant submitted a September 16, 2020 report 

from Dr. Pascoe who reported the findings of his physical examination and diagnosed bilateral 

sacroiliac joint dysfunction, subsequent encounter. He noted that, “[t]o a reasonable degree of 

medical certainty, [appellant’s] occupation and specifically her mechanism of injury is a competent 

12 J.M., Docket No. 19-1842 (issued April23, 2020).

13 See supra note 4 at Chapter 2.1602.5a (September 2020); see also J.S., Docket No. 16-1240 (issued 

December 1, 2016).

14 K.W., Docket No. 19-1808 (issued April2, 2020).

15 Id.

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

17 See D.I., 59 ECAB 158 (2007).

18 See supra notes 9 and 11.
6

medical cause of her current symptoms. She has a preexisting condition that being psoriatic 

arthritis.” 

As noted, clear evidence of error is intended to represent a difficult standard. 19 Even a 

detailed, well-rationalized medical report which, if submitted before the denial was issued, would 

have created a conflict in medical evidence requiring further development is insufficient to 

demonstrate clear evidence of error. 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.20 As Dr. Pascoe failed to describe the November 13, 2018 employment incident in detail 

and failed to explain how it could have been responsible for appellant’s diagnosed sacroiliac joint 

condition, his report does not raise a substantial question concerning the correctness of OWCP’s 

August 6, 2020 decision.

21

 Therefore, OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration, finding that 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 as it 

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

 

19 See supra note 12.

 

20 M.E., Docket No. 18-1442 (issued April22, 2019).

21 See S.F., Docket No. 09-0270 (issued August26, 2009).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 18, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 19, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board