United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MORGAN 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

New York, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0887

Issued: October 20, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 19, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 20, 2018 nonmerit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 The most recent merit 

decision was a decision of the Board, dated September 7, 2017, which became final after 30 days 

of issuance, and is not subject to further review.2 As there was no merit decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days from the filing of this appeal, pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

 

1 Appellant also filed a timely request for oral argument in this case. In a separate order issued on July 20, 2020 

the Board denied her request for oral argument as oral argument would further delay issuance of a Board decision and 

not serve a useful purpose. Order Denying Request for Oral Argument, Docket No. 19-0887 (issued July 20, 2020).

2 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d); see M.S., Docket No. 18-0222 (issued June 21, 2018); J.P., Docket No. 17-0053 (issued 

May 23, 2017); R.M., Docket No. 14-1213 (issued October 15, 2014).
2

Act3(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board lacks jurisdiction over the merits of 

this case.4

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

This case has previously been before the Board.5 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

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

follows.

On April 8, 2013 appellant, then a 38-year-old mail handler, filed a notice of recurrence 

(Form CA-2a) alleging that on March 31, 2013 she felt a sharp pain and stiffness in her neck when 

opening bags while in the performance of duty. She reported the date of the original injury as 

August 30, 2007.6 Appellant indicated that she had recovered from the August 30, 2007 

employment injury, but had sustained another injury on March 31, 2013. 

In an April 4, 2013 letter, appellant noted that on March 29, 2013 she was working on a 

sorter machine and loading tubs and on March 30, 2013 she was again working on the sorting 

machine. Then on March 31, 2013 she was opening bags and felt a sharp pain in her back and 

stiffness in her neck. 

On April 25, 2013 OWCP indicated in a letter that it would develop this claim as a new 

injury. It noted that appellant’s claim indicated that she was alleging a new traumatic injury on 

March 31, 2013. 

By decision dated June 14, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that she had 

established that the incident occurred, as alleged, but that she had not submitted probative medical 

evidence of a diagnosed condition causally related to the accepted employment incident. It

concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by 

FECA. 

 

3 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4 The Board notes that, following the September 20, 2018 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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.

5 Docket No. 17-0833 (issued September 7, 2017).

6 Appellant had a prior claim for a traumatic injury on August 30, 2007, which OWCP accepted for cervical and 

lumbar strains, and assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx761. 
3

On October 1, 2013, April 2 and December 3, 2014, and February 16 and November 7, 

2016, appellant requested reconsideration and submitted additional evidence in support of her 

claim. 

By decisions dated December 24, 2013, June 30, 2014, February 19, 2015, May 16, 2016,

and January 17, 2017 OWCP denied modification. 

On March 6, 2017 appellant, through counsel, appealed to the Board. 

By decision dated September 7, 2017, the Board affirmed OWCP’s January 17, 2017 

decision finding that appellant had not established an injury causally related to the accepted 

March 31, 2013 employment incident.7 

On September 10, 2018 appellant submitted OWCP’s January 17, 2017 appeal request 

form and requested reconsideration of the September 7, 2017 merit decision. 

By decision dated September 20, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration of the merits of her claim finding that the request 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.8 The Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against compensation at any 

time on his or her own motion or on application.9 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.10 Timeliness is determined by the 

document receipt date (i.e., the “received date” in OWCP’s Integrated Federal Employees’

Compensation System (iFECS)).11 Imposition of this one-year filing limitation does not constitute 

an abuse of discretion.12

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 

 

7 Supra note 5.

8 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).

9

J.V., Docket No. 19-0990 (issued August 26, 2020); see L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019); 

see also V.P., Docket No. 17-1287 (issued October 10, 2017); D.L., Docket No. 09-1549 (issued February 23, 2010); 

W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).

11 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4(b) (February 2016).

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

Faidley, Jr., 41 ECAB 104 (1989).
4

decision was in error.13 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.14 In this regard, OWCP will limit its focus to a review of how the newly submitted 

evidence bears on the prior evidence of record.15

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

issue which was decided by OWCP.16 The evidence must be positive, precise, and explicit and 

must manifest on its face that OWCP committed an error. Evidence that 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 not only be of sufficient probative value to create a conflict 

in medical opinion or establish a clear procedural error, but 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.17

ANALYSIS

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

was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.18

OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration on September 10, 2018 which was 

more than one year after the September 7, 2017 merit decision,

19 which had affirmed OWCP’s 

January 17, 2017 merit decision. The one-year period for requesting reconsideration began on the 

date of the original OWCP decision, but the right to reconsideration within one year also 

accompanies any subsequent merit decision on the issues, including any merit decision by the 

 

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

499, 501-02 (1990).

14 L.C., Docket No. 18-1407 (issued February 14, 2019); M.L., Docket No. 09-0956 (issued April 15, 2010). See

also 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); supra note 11 at Chapter 2.1602.5 (February 2016).

15 J.W., Docket No. 18-0703 (issued November 14, 2018); Robert G. Burns, 57 ECAB 657 (2006).

16 S.C., Docket No. 18-0126 (issued May 14, 2016); supra note 11 at Chapter 2.1602.5(a) (February 2016).

17 Supra note 15.

18 R.T., Docket No. 20-0298 (issued August 6, 2020).

19 OWCP has no jurisdiction to review a Board decision. The decisions and orders of the Board are final as to the 

subject matter appealed and such decisions and orders are not subject to review, except by the Board. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.6(d). Appellant had 30 days from the date of the Board’s September 7, 2017 decision to file a petition for 

reconsideration with this Board of its decision. Id. at § 501.7. See also B.B., Docket No. 14-0464 (issued 

June 4, 2014).
5

Board.20 As appellant’s request for reconsideration was untimely filed,21 she must demonstrate 

clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP.22

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

underlying issue is whether OWCP properly denied her traumatic injury claim because the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that her diagnosed conditions were causally related 

to the accepted March 31, 2013 employment incident. In support of her claim, appellant submitted 

an appeal form requesting reconsideration of the Board’s September 7, 2017 decision. She did 

not, however, submit evidence or arguments in support of her reconsideration request raising a 

substantial question concerning the correctness of the denial of her claim. 

Appellant did not submit evidence demonstrating that OWCP committed an error in 

denying her claim for a traumatic injury in its January 17, 2017 decision.23 She has not otherwise 

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

of the Board’s September 7, 2017 decision affirming OWCP’s January 17, 2017 merit decision.24 

Thus, appellant has not demonstrated clear evidence of error.

For these reasons, 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.

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.

 

20 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); Debra McDavid, 57 ECAB 149 (2005).

21 Supra note 17.

22 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); see R.T., Docket No. 19-0604 (issued September 13, 2019); see Debra McDavid, 57 

ECAB 149 (2005).

23 W.R., Docket No. 18-1042 (issued February 12, 2019).

24 Supra note 17.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 20, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 20, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board