United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Las Vegas, NV,

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0481

Issued: July 20, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 12, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 18, 2021 nonmerit

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The most recent merit

decision was a Board decision dated May 5, 2017, which became final after 30 days of issuance,

and is notsubject to further review.1 As there is no merit decision issued by OWCP within 180

days of 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 lacksjurisdiction over the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s August 4, 2021 request for 

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

1

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d). See S.S., Docket No. 21-0627 (issued June 22, 2022); S.M., Docket No. 21-0392 (issued 

August 12, 2021); G.G., Docket No. 18-1074 (issuedJanuary7, 2019).

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.3 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

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

follows.

On February 12, 2013 appellant, then a 27-year-old postal support employee clerk, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging an injury to his left shoulder on September 6, 2012 

when lifting and pitching parcels into designated locations while in the performance of duty. He 

did not stop work. 

By decision dated March 29, 2013, OWCP denied the claim, finding that, while the 

September 6, 2012 employment incident had occurred as alleged, the medical evidence of record 

was insufficient to establish left shoulder, cervical, and/or thoracic conditions causally related to 

the employment incident.

Appellant subsequently requested reconsideration and submitted additional medical 

evidence. By decisions dated August 2, 2013 and August 29, 2014, OWCP denied modification. 

Appellant, through counsel, appealed to the Board. By decision dated April 16, 2015, the Board 

affirmed OWCP’s August 29, 2014 decision.

On April 12, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted additional medical 

evidence. 

Appellant submitted additional medical evidence. By decision dated June 15, 2016, 

OWCP denied modification. Appellant, through counsel, appealed to the Board on July 19, 2016. 

By decision dated May 5, 2017, the Board affirmed OWCP’s June 15, 2016 decision, finding that 

the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between appellant’s 

medical conditions and the accepted September 6, 2012 employment incident.

On August 22, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration.

By decision dated November 20, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration, finding that the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant a merit review.

OWCP subsequently received additional evidence.

On June 6, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration, arguing that his request for 

reconsideration was not actually untimely because it had been mailed on April 20, 2018 from 

Citrus Height, California, by certified Priority Mail, to San Francisco, California on 

April 24, 2018. By decision dated August 29, 2018, OWCP summarily denied appellant’s June 6, 

2018 request for reconsideration, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear 

evidence of error. Appellant appealed to the Board on March 21, 2019. By decision dated 

September 13, 2019, the Board set aside OWCP’s August 29, 2018 decision and remanded the 

3 Docket No. 15-256 (issued April16, 2015); Docket No. 16-1518 (issued May 5, 2017); Docket No. 19-0604 

(issued September 13, 2019); Docket No. 20-0298 (issued August 6, 2020).
3

case for an appropriate decision on appellant’s untimely request for reconsideration because it had 

not discharged its responsibility to set forth findings of fact and a clear statement of reasons for its 

disposition.

By decision dated October 15, 2019, OWCP again denied appellant’s June 6, 2018 request 

for reconsideration, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of 

error. It noted that, while he had submitted evidence in support of his argument that the 

reconsideration request was timely filed, the evidence indicated that he mailed a package via

certified Priority Mail to a San Francisco, California address on April 20, 2018 when requests for 

reconsideration were to be sent to its central mailroom in London, Kentucky. Appellant’s request 

for reconsideration was forwarded to London, Kentucky for processing, but not received there 

until June 6, 2018. 

On December 5, 2019 appellant appealed to the Board. By decision dated August 6, 2020, 

the Board affirmed OWCP’s October 15, 2019 decision, finding that appellant’s June 6, 2018 

reconsideration was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.4

On August 4, 2021 appellant again requested reconsideration.

Appellant submitted a medical report dated July 23, 2021 from Dr. Champlin. 

Dr. Champlin reiterated earlier findings that appellant’s diagnosed medical conditions were 

causally related to the accepted September 6, 2012 employment incident.

By decision dated August 18, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s August 4, 2021 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 Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date (i.e., 

the “received date” in OWCP’s Integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS).7 

Imposition of this one-year filing limitation does not constitute an abuse of discretion.8

When a request for reconsideration is untimely, OWCP undertakes a limited review to 

determine whether the request demonstrates clear evidence that OWCP’s most recent merit 

4 Docket No. 20-0298 (issued August6, 2020).

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 2.1602.4 (September 2020).

8 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).
4

decision was in error.9 OWCP’s procedures provide that it will reopen a claimant’s case for merit 

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

claimant’s request for reconsideration demonstrates “clear evidence of error” on the part of 

OWCP.10 In this regard, OWCP will limit its focus to a review of how the newly submitted 

evidence bears on the prior evidence of record.11

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

issue which was decided by OWCP.12 The evidence must be positive, precise, and explicit and 

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

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

clear evidence of error. 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 reconsideration request bears on the evidence previously of record and whether 

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

of error, the evidence submitted 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.13

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

difficult standard. The claimant must present evidence which on its face demonstrates that OWCP 

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

whether a claimant has demonstrated clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP. 15

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s August 4, 2021 request for 

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

demonstrate clear evidence of error.

OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration on August 4, 2021, which was 

more than one year after the Board’s May 5, 2017 merit decision. The right to reconsideration 

9

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).

10 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); supranote 7 at Chapter 2.1602.5 (September 2020).

11 J.M., Docket No. 19-1842 (issued April23, 2020); Robert G. Burns, 57 ECAB 657 (2006).

12 S.C., Docket No. 18-0126 (issued May 14, 2016).

13 C.M., Docket No. 19-1211 (issued August 5, 2020).

14 J.S., Docket No. 16-1240 (issued December 1, 2016); supra note 7 at Chapter 2.1602.5(a) (September 2020).

15 D.S., Docket No. 17-0407 (issued May 24, 2017).
5

within one year also accompanies any subsequent merit decision on the issues, including any merit 

decision by the Board.16 As appellant’s request was untimely filed, he must demonstrate clear

evidence of error on the part of OWCP in its June 15, 2016 decision.

17

In support of his request for reconsideration, appellant submitted a July 23, 2021 medical 

report from Dr. Champlin, who reiterated his earlier opinion that appellant’s diagnosed medical

conditions were causally related to the September 6, 2012 employment incident. The Board finds 

that Dr. Champlin’s report is insufficient to demonstrate clear evidence of error as he merely 

reiterates his opinion and findings found in medical reports that were previously of record and 

reviewed by OWCP. 

As noted, clear evidence of error is intended to represent a difficult standard. 18 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.19

The Board thus finds that appellant’s request for reconsideration does not demonstrate on 

its face that OWCP committed error in its June 15, 2016 decision, which the Board affirmed on 

May 5, 2017.

20

 Therefore, OWCP properly determined that appellant’s request for reconsideration

did not demonstrate clear evidence of error in its June 15, 2016 decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP properly 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.

16 Supra note 8 at Chapter 2.1602.4(b) (February 2016).

17 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b).

18 Supra note 8 at Chapter 2.1602.5(a)(September 2020); see also J.S., Docket No. 16-1240 (issued 

December 1, 2016).

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

20 See S.F., Docket No. 09-0270 (issued August26, 2009).
6

ORDER

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 20, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board