United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, KALAMAZOO/BATTLE 

CREEK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, 

Portage, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0486

Issued: June 14, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Stephanie N. Leet, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 17, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a January 26, 

2022 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). A period of 

more than 180 days has elapsed from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated August 23, 2019, to the 

filing of this appeal. Therefore, 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.

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.
2

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 July 19, 2019 appellant, then a 39-year-old transportation security screener, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD), anxiety disorder, depression, and panic attacks due to factors of her federal employment. 

She explained that she was among the first screeners hired following the September 11, 2001 

terrorist attacks, and that her job duties included detecting bombs in luggage and guns through 

x-ray machines, which aggravated her PTSD. Appellant noted that she first became aware of her 

claimed condition on December 23, 1997 and realized its relationship to her federal employment 

on July 9, 2019 after treating with her psychiatrist. She contended that the employing 

establishment had actual knowledge of her alleged condition within 30 days after it occurred, but 

did not report it or refer her to a workers’ compensation representative. Appellant stopped work 

on July 26, 2003. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted undated statements clarifying that she first 

became aware that her conditions were related to her federal employment on July 8, 2019, not 

December 23, 1997. She also indicated that she was diagnosed with PTSD in 2011, following a 

suicide attempt, and that her anxiety, depression, and panic attacks made it difficult for her to 

maintain employment or to complete school.

In a letter dated July 17, 2019, H.H., an employing establishment human resources 

specialist, recounted a telephone call with appellant that occurred on July 16, 2019. He noted that 

she related a history of severe anxiety related to exposure to explosives during military service, 

that she worked for the employing establishment between 2002 to 2003, and that from “day one”

she experienced severe anxiety due to her job duties, including looking for explosives. H.H. noted 

that appellant alleged that she had reported these concerns to her supervisor, whose name she could 

not recall, subsequently took time off from work due to anxiety, and was eventually terminated 

due to attendance issues.

In an August 15, 2019 letter, H.H. controverted appellant’s claim, asserting that she failed 

to file her occupational disease claim within the three-year time limitation. He noted that she was 

employed from November 17, 2002 through July 11, 2003 and denied that the employing 

establishment had any knowledge of her claimed conditions within 30 days after it occurred.

By decision dated August 23, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that it was untimely filed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8122. It found that her claim had not been 

filed within the three-year filing requirement of the date of last exposure or from the perspective 

of “latent” disability, noting that the evidence suggested that she knew or should have known her 

condition was caused or aggravated by her work environment no later than June 2003. OWCP

further found that the evidence of record did not establish that appellant’s supervisor had actual 
3

knowledge of an employment injury or that written notice of the injury had been provided within 

30 days.

On January 12, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s August 23, 2019 

decision. In support of her request, she submitted an undated statement noting that she had 

symptoms of PTSD while working for the employing establishment in 2002 and 2003, but was not 

aware of her PTSD diagnosis until after her employment ended. Appellant noted that she had 

applied for service-connected disability benefits for PTSD through the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA), and she enclosed a copy of a December 14, 2020 decision by the Board of Veterans’

Appeals (BVA), which granted her claim for service-connected PTSD. 

By decision dated February 2, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s reconsideration request 

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

OWCP continued to receive evidence, including a November 6, 2021 report by Dr. Ray 

Kamoo, a licensed clinical psychologist, who evaluated appellant on October 14, 2021. 

Dr. Kamoo noted that she was abused as a child, experienced PTSD symptoms after serving in the 

military, and began working for the employing establishment in 2002, which included bomb 

detection of luggage and people. He indicated that appellant related that these job duties made her

anxious and scared and aroused unresolved trauma, which led to panic attacks and missed time 

from work due to anxiety. Dr. Kamoo opined that her PTSD symptoms originated from her 

childhood trauma and were triggered by her military service and later by her duties with the 

employing establishment.

On January 12, 2022 appellant, through counsel, again requested reconsideration of the 

August 23, 2019 decision. In connection with the request, counsel reiterated that the claim was 

timely filed from a “latent” disability perspective and argued the merits of the claim.

By decision dated January 26, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s reconsideration request 

finding that it 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.3 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).4 The Board has found that the imposition of the oneyear time limitation does not constitute an abuse of the discretionary authority granted OWCP 

under section 8128(a) of FECA.5

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.L., Docket No. 18-0852 (issued January 14, 2020).
4

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 

review to determine whether the request demonstrates clear evidence of error. 6 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. 7

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.8 Evidence that does not raise a substantial question as 

to the correctness of OWCP’s decision is insufficient to demonstrate clear evidence of error.9 It is 

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

conclusion.10 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. 11 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.12 

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

represent a difficult standard.13 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.14 

6

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).

7

Supra note 3. See also supranote 4 at Chapter 2.1602.5a (September 2020).

8

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).

9

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

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

11 Id.

12 Id.

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

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

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that 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. 

OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration on January 12, 2022, more than 

one year after the last merit decision dated August 23, 2019. Her request was therefore untimely 

filed. Consequently, appellant must demonstrate clear evidence of error.15

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

underlying issue is whether her claim for compensation was filed within the applicable time 

limitation provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 8122(a). 

In connection with her untimely request for reconsideration, appellant, through counsel, 

argued that her claim was timely filed from a “latent” disability perspective and that the evidence 

of record was sufficient to require further development by OWCP. She also submitted a 

November 6, 2021 narrative psychological report by Dr. Kamoo. The Board finds that

Dr. Kamoo’s report and counsel’s argument do not demonstrate clear evidence of error, because 

they do not demonstrate that OWCP committed an error in finding that appellant’s claim was not 

filed within the applicable time limitation provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 8122(a), nor did they raise a 

substantial question as to the correctness of OWCP’s August 23, 2019 decision.16

As noted, the term clear evidence is a difficult standard and it is not enough to show that 

the evidence could be construed to produce a contrary conclusion. 17 None of the evidence 

submitted by appellant in connection with her untimely reconsideration request manifests on its 

face that OWCP committed an error in finding her claim untimely.

18

 Appellant has not submitted 

evidence of sufficient probative value to raise a substantial question as to the correctness of 

OWCP’s decision.19 Thus, the evidence of record is insufficient to demonstrate clear evidence of 

error.

The Board finds that the evidence submitted in support of the untimely request for 

reconsideration is insufficient to shift the weight of the evidence in favor of appellant’s claim or 

to raise a substantial question that OWCP erred in its August 23, 2019 decision. Accordingly, the 

15 Supra notes 5 and 6.

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

17 See P.T., id.

18 T.N., Docket No. 18-1613 (issued April29, 2020); see supra note 4 at Chapter 2.1602.5(a) (February 2016); see 

also W.D., Docket No. 19-0062 (issued April15, 2019); R.M., Docket No. 18-1393 (issued February 12, 2019). J.S., 

Docket No. 16-1240 (issued December 1, 2016).

19 See J.D., Docket No. 19-1836 (issued April6, 2020); S.W., Docket No. 18-0126 (issued May 14, 2019); RobertG. 

Burns, 57 ECAB 657 (2006); LeonN. Travis, 43 ECAB 227 (1999).
6

Board finds that OWCP properly denied her reconsideration request, 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 of the 

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

error.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 23, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 14, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, 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