United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.F., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Houston, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0572

Issued: September 20, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Joyce Fuller, for the appellant1

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 March 7, 2022 appellant, through his representative, filed a timely appeal from a

February 15, 2022 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’Compensation Programs (OWCP).

As more than 180 days has elapsed from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated April 22, 2002, to the 

filing of this appeal, pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 

20 C.F.R. § § 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board lacks jurisdiction over the merits of this case.3 

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

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that appellant submitted evidence and argument on appeal. However, the Board’s Rules of 

Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before 

OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for the first 

time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for 

the first time on appeal. Id.
2

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

This case has previously been before the Board.4 The facts and circumstances as presented 

in the Board’s prior decisions are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as 

follows.

On August 10, 2000 appellant, then a 36-year-old mail processor, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he sustained a right shoulder injury, clavicle strain, and right 

rotator cuff injury on August 9, 2000 when a coworker tapped him on the shoulder, causing him 

to “go to his knees.”

5

By merit decisions dated November 22, 2000, May 21, 2001, and April 22, 2002, OWCP 

denied the claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the 

diagnosed conditions were causally related to the accepted August 9, 2000 employment incident. 

Following the April 22, 2002 merit decision, appellant continued to request reconsideration 

of the merits of his claim. OWCP denied his requests for reconsideration and he filed appeals to 

the Board. By decision dated May 20, 2019, the Board affirmed an August 29, 2018 OWCP 

nonmerit decision, finding that appellant’s reconsideration request was untimely filed and failed 

to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

6

On November 30, 2020 appellant, through his representative, again requested 

reconsideration, contending that there were administrative delays by OWCP after the Board issued 

its May 20, 2019 decision. Appellant’s representative further contended that the evidence 

submitted on reconsideration demonstrated clear evidence of error as it included an unsigned case 

notes initial assessment dated August 22, 2000 which noted that appellant had been tapped on the 

shoulder on August 9, 2000, after a previous injury to the same shoulder. Appellant’s diagnosis 

was listed as right shoulder rule out rotator cuff. OWCP also received: a copy of appellant’s Form 

4 Docket No. 0407 (issued November 10, 2021); Docket No. 18-1802 (issued May 20, 2019); Order Dismissing 

Appeal in Docket No. 20-1433 and Dismissing Petition for Reconsideration in Docket No. 18-1802, Docket Nos. 

20-1433 & 18-1802 (issued August28, 2020); Docket No. 18-0250 (issued July 6, 2018); Docket No. 16-0871 (issued 

June 10, 2016); Docket No. 14-1589 (issued November 24, 2014); Docket No. 12-1749 (issued February 5, 2013),

petition for recon. denied, Docket No. 12-1749 (issued August 2, 2013); Docket No. 10-2378 (issued August 16, 

2011), petition for recon. denied, Docket No. 10-2378 (issued February 23, 2012); Docket No. 09-1027 (issued 

December 17, 2009), petition for recon. denied, Docket No. 09-1027 (issued May 6, 2010); Docket No. 08-271 (issued 

June 20, 2008); Docket No. 07-978 (issued August 17, 2007); Docket No. 04-2283 (issued December 21, 2005).

5 The record indicates that appellant also has a claim for a May3, 2000 traumatic injury under OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx590, accepted for right shoulder strain; and a claim for a September 18, 1991 traumatic injury accepted for left 

elbow lateral epicondylitis, left shoulder adhesive capsulitis, left brachial plexus lesions, left tenosynovitis of the 

hand/wrist and sprain/strains of the right shoulder, upper arm and acromioclavicular joint under. OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx559. Appellant’s claims have been administratively combined by OWCP with OWCP File No. xxxxxx559 

serving as the master file.

6 Docket No. 18-1802 (issued May 20, 2019).
3

CA-1; copies of OWCP’s May 21, 2001, October 1, 2002, and August 29, 2018 decisions; a partial 

copy of the Board’s May 20, 2018 decision; copies of appellant’s requests for reconsideration 

dated June 3, 2019, March 23, 2020, and July 20, 2020; OWCP’s August 10, 2020 

acknowledgement letter; the Board’s November 8, 2020 letter regarding its lack of jurisdiction 

over Board Docket Nos. 20-1433 and 18-1802; and two USPS Tracking forms showing delivery 

dates.

By decision dated December 29, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration of the merits of his claim, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to 

demonstrate clear evidence of error. 

Appellant appealed the December 29, 2020 decision to the Board. 

OWCP thereafter received a March 18, 2021 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of 

appellant’s left shoulder and a March 23, 2021 MRI scan of his left elbow. 

By order dated November 10, 2021, the Board set aside OWCP’s December 29, 2020 

decision.7 The Board found that OWCP had summarily denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration without complying with the review requirements of FECA and its implementing 

regulations.

8

 The Board remanded the case for findings of fact and a statement of reasons, to be 

followed by an appropriate decision on appellant’s reconsideration request. 

By decision dated February 15, 2022, OWCPagain denied appellant’s November 30, 2020 

request for reconsideration, finding that the request was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate 

clear evidence of error.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

To be entitled to a merit review of an OWCP decision denying or terminating a benefit, a 

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

decision for which review is sought.9 Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date of 

the request for reconsideration as is indicated by the “received date” in the Integrated Federal 

Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS).10 The Board has found that the imposition of the 

one-year time limitation does not constitute an abuse of the discretionary authority granted OWCP 

under section 8128(a) of FECA.11

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

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

7 Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 21-0407 (issued November 10, 2021).

8 M.D., Docket No. 20-0868 (issued April28, 2021); T.P., Docket No. 19-1533 (issued April30, 2020); see also

20 C.F.R. § 10.607.

9

20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).

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

11 D.R., Docket No. 21-0061 (issued May 24, 2021); G.L., Docket No. 18-0852 (issued January 14, 2020).
4

review to determine whether the request demonstrates clear evidence of error. 12 OWCP’s 

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 claimant’s 

request for reconsideration demonstrates clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP. 13

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

issue decided by OWCP. The evidence must be positive, precise, and explicit, and it must manifest 

on its face that OWCP committed an error.14 Evidence that does not raise a substantial question 

as to the correctness of OWCP’s decision is insufficient to demonstrate clear evidence of error.15 

It is not enough merely to show that the evidence could be construed so as to produce a contrary 

conclusion.16 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.17 The Board makes an 

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

the part of OWCP such that it abused its discretion in denying merit review in the face of such 

evidence.18

OWCP’s procedures further provide that the term clear evidence of error is intended to 

represent a difficult standard.19 The claimant must present evidence that on its face shows that 

OWCP made an error (for example, proof that a schedule award was miscalculated). Evidence 

such as a detailed, well-rationalized medical report that, if submitted before the denial was issued, 

would have created a conflict in medical opinion requiring further development, is not clear 

evidence of error.20

ANALYSIS

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

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

12 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); T.C., Docket No. 19-1709 (issued June 5, 2020); Charles J. Prudencio, 41 ECAB 499, 

501-02 (1990).

13 Supra note 9;supranote 10at Chapter 2.1602.5a (September 2020).

14 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); B.W., Docket No. 19-0626 (issued March 4, 2020); Fidel E. Perez, 48 ECAB 663, 

665 (1997).

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

16 See G.B., Docket No. 19-1762 (issued March 10, 2020); LeonaN. Travis, 43 ECAB 227, 240 (1991).

17 Id.

18 Id.

19 R.K., Docket No. 19-1474 (issued March 3, 2020).

20 W.B., Docket No. 20-1197 (issued February 3, 2021); A.R., Docket No. 15-1598 (issued December 7, 2015).
5

OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration on November 30, 2020, more than 

one year after the April 22, 2002 merit decision. Appellant’s request was, therefore, untimely 

filed. Consequently, he must demonstrate clear evidence of error.21

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

On reconsideration appellant submitted unsigned case notes dated August 22, 2000 which 

related that he had been tapped on the shoulder on August 9, 2000, after a previous injury to the 

same shoulder. His diagnosis was listed as right shoulder rule out rotator cuff. The Board has 

held that medical evidence containing an illegible signature, or which is unsigned has no probative

value, as it is not established that the author is a physician.

22

 Appellant also submitted additional 

medical evidence in the form of MRI scan reports. MRI scan reports, however, do not demonstrate 

that OWCP committed an error in finding that he failed to establish causal relationship between 

his diagnosed conditions and the accepted August 9, 2000 employment incident, nor do they raise 

a substantial question as to the correctness of OWCP’s April 22, 2002 decision.23 As noted above, 

evidence such as a detailed, well-rationalized medical report that, if submitted before the denial 

was issued, would have created a conflict in medical opinion requiring further development, is not 

clear evidence of error.24 

The term clear evidence of error is intended to represent a difficult standard. 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 did not show on its face that OWCP committed error when, in its April 22, 

2002 decision, it determined that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish a causal 

relationship between appellant’s diagnosed conditions and the August 9, 2000 employment 

incident. Thus, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

Accordingly, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s reconsideration 

request, as 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.

21 Supra notes 9 and 10.

22 See T.C., Docket No. 21-1123 (issued April5, 2022); Z.G., 19-0967 (issued October 21, 2019); see R.M., 59 

ECAB 690 (2008);MertonJ. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988); Bradford L. Sullivan, 33 ECAB 1568 (1982).

23 C.D., Docket No. 19-1462 (issued June 26, 2020);see also P.T., Docket No. 18-0494 (issued July 9, 2018).

24 Supra note 20.

25 L.N., Docket No. 20-0742 (issued October 26, 2020).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 15, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 20, 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