United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MAIN OFFICE 

LITTLE ROCK POST OFFICE, Little Rock, AR, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1070

Issued: December 7, 2023

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 June 10, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 16, 2021 nonmerit 

decision of the Office of Workers’Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 As more than 180 days has 

elapsed from the last merit decision on this issue, dated August 1, 2019, to the filing of this appeal, 

1 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from December 16, 2021, the date of OWCP’s nonmerit decision, was 

June 14, 2022. Because using July 5, 2022, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards, 

would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the postmark is considered the date of filing. The date of the U.S. 

Postal Service postmark is June 10, 2022, rendering the appeal timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1).
2

pursuant to the Federal Employees’Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of this case. 3

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

On July 20, 2017 appellant, then a 48-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on July 5, 2017 he sustained right knee and left ankle sprainswhen he 

jumped off a porch to avoid a dog attack while in the performance of duty. OWCP initially 

accepted the claim for a medial meniscus tear and an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear of the 

right knee, later expanding the acceptance of appellant’s claim to include sprain of the right knee 

and cruciate ligament. 

In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated October 31, 2018, Dr. Tommy Love, an 

internist, recommended work restrictions of lifting no more than 25 pounds for up to four hours 

intermittently; standing and walking for no more than two hours daily intermittently; no climbing 

or kneeling; bending/stooping for no more than one hour per day intermittently; twisting for no 

more than six hours per day intermittently; pulling/pushing for no more than one hour per day 

intermittently; simple grasping for no more than six hours per day intermittently; reaching above 

the shoulder for no more than two hours per day intermittently; and driving a vehicle for no more 

than one hour per day intermittently.

On November 5, 2018 the employing establishment offered appellant a limited-duty job as 

a modified city carrier. The duties of the modified position involved carrying his route for up to 

eight hours per day. The physical requirements of the modified assignment included:

lifting/carrying up to 25 pounds for up to four hours intermittently; no climbing or kneeling; 

walking up to two hours per day intermittently; and driving a vehicle for up to an hour per day. 

Appellant’s work restrictions were summarized as including: limited lifting and carrying of up to 

25 pounds for up to six hours per day intermittently; no climbing or kneeling; walking up to two 

hours per day intermittently; and driving a vehicle for up to an hour per day intermittently. The 

offer also indicated that all of appellant’s medical restrictions would be accommodated.

On November 26, 2018 OWCP advised appellant that it found the November 5, 2018 job 

offer was suitable work within the work limitations provided by Dr. Love. It afforded him 30 days 

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that, following the December 16, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. Appellant 

also submitted additional evidence 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.
3

to accept the offered position or to provide valid reasons for refusal. Appellant did not respond to 

OWCP’s advisory letter or accept the offered position within 30 days.

By decision dated March 6, 2019, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

and entitlement to schedule award benefits, effective March 7, 2019, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8106(c)(2), as he refused an offer of suitable work. It found that the job offer was suitable based 

upon his current work restrictions as provided by Dr. Love on October 31, 2018.

On March 29, 2019 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review. The hearing was held on June 24, 2019. No additional evidence 

was received.

By decision dated August 1, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

March 6, 2019 decision. 

On January 12, 2021 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a schedule 

award. 

On January 12, 2021 OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim, noting that his 

entitlement to compensation for wage-loss and schedule award benefits was terminated on 

March 7, 2019 due to his refusal of suitable work, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c)(2). 

On April 30, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s August 1, 2019 

termination decision. In a statement dated April 14, 2021, he requested reinstatement of his 

compensation for wage-loss and schedule award benefits, acknowledging that his reconsideration 

request was untimely. Appellant stated that he had retired from the employing establishment in 

June 2019 due to disability caused by the work-related injury. He noted that he had accepted the 

job offer verbally. In an additional statement dated May 3, 2021, appellant noted that he was 

unable to go to the employing establishment to accept the job offer in writing as a result of his 

work-related injury.

By decision dated July 28, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration, 

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

On August 16, 2021 appellant again requested appellant’s reconsideration of OWCP’s 

August 1, 2019 decision. He submitted prior unsigned job offers from February 20 through 

October 26, 2018. Appellant resubmitted a rehabilitation closure report dated March 28, 2019 and 

resubmitted rehabilitation progress reports dated from December 19, 2018 through 

February 20, 2019. He also resubmitted correspondence with the employing establishment and 

OWCP, as well as resubmitting a statement dated March 26, 2019.

By decision dated September 29, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration, finding that the reconsideration requests was untimely filed and failed to

demonstrate clear evidence of error. It further noted that as well as not returning a signed and 

accepted modified job offer, he had not reported for work.

In a statement dated September 23, 2021, a union steward stated that appellant had

accepted all modified job offers from the employing establishment, by telephone communication. 
4

On December 9, 2021 appellant again requested reconsideration.

By decision dated December 16, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

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

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Section 8128(a) of FECA does not entitle a claimant to a review of an OWCP decision as 

a matter of right.4 OWCP has discretionary authority in this regard and has imposed certain 

limitations in exercising its authority.5 One such limitation is that the request for reconsideration 

must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of the decision for which review is sought. 6 

OWCP procedures require a review of the record to determine whether the application for 

reconsideration was received within one year of a merit decision. The one-year period begins on 

the date of the original decision. However, a right to reconsideration within one year accompanies 

any subsequent merit decision on the issues. This includes any hearing or review of the written 

record decision, any denial of modification following reconsideration, any merit decision by the 

Board, and any merit decision following action by the Board, but does not include prerecoupment 

hearing decisions.7 Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date of the reconsideration 

request, i.e., the received date in the Integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation System 

(iFECS). If the request for reconsideration has a document received date greater than one year, 

the request must be considered untimely.8

OWCP will consider an untimely request for reconsideration only if it demonstrates clear 

evidence of error on the part of it in its most recent merit decision. The request must establish, on 

its face, that such decision was erroneous.9 The term clear evidence of error is intended to 

represent a difficult standard. If clear evidence of error has not been presented, OWCP should 

deny the request by letter decision, which includes a brief evaluation of the evidence submitted 

and a finding made that clear evidence of error has not been shown.10

4 This section provides in pertinent part: “[t]he Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against payment of 

compensation at any time on [his] own motion or on application.” 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.607.

6

Id. at § 10.607(a). For merit decisions issued on or after August 29, 2011, a request for reconsideration must be 

received by OWCP within one year of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought. Federal (FECA) Procedure 

Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 (September 2020). 

7

Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4a. (September 2020).

8

Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4b (September 2020); see also S.J., Docket No. 19-1864 (issued August 12, 2020); W.A.,

Docket No. 17-0225 (issued May 16, 2017).

9 W.A., id.; D.O., Docket No. 08-1057 (issued June 23, 2009); Robert F. Stone, 57 ECAB 292 (2005).

10 Supra note 6 at Chapter 2.1602.5a (September 2020).
5

ANALYSIS

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

merits of his claim, as it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. 11

OWCP’s regulations establish a one-year time limit for requesting reconsideration, which 

begins on the date of the original merit decision. The most recent merit decision on this issue was 

the August 1, 2019 decision from OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, affirming OWCP’s 

March 6, 2019 decision. As OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration on 

December 9, 2021, more than one year after the August 1, 2019 merit decision, the Board finds 

that the request was untimely filed.12

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

underlying issue is whether OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and entitlement to schedule award benefits, effective March 7, 2019, for refusing an 

offer of suitable work pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c)(2). On reconsideration, appellant submitted 

a September 23, 2021 statement from a union steward, contending that appellant had accepted all 

modified job offers from the employing establishment.

The term clear evidence of error is intended to represent a difficult standard. The Board 

finds that the evidence submitted on reconsideration does not show that OWCP committed error 

in its August 1, 2019 decision. There is no evidence that appellant accepted the November 5, 2018 

modified job offer, prior to the termination of his compensation benefits. Appellant has not 

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

OWCP’s August 1, 2019 decision.

Accordingly, 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.

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.

11 D.B., Docket No. 19-0648 (issued October 21, 2020); R.T., Docket No. 20-0298 (issued August 6, 2020).

12 Id.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 16, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 7, 2023

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