United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MERRIFIELD POST 

OFFICE, Merrifield, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0626

Issued: August 24, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 22, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 20, 2023 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated February 10, 2020, to the filing of this appeal, 

pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board lacks jurisdiction over the merits of this case. 2

ISSUE

The issue is whether 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.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the January 20, 2023 decision, the Boardreceived 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.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 6, 2020 appellant, then a 20-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 26, 2019 he sustained muscle soreness in his 

right knee and neck when his vehicle collided with a truck and flipped over while in the 

performance of duty. The employing establishment acknowledged on the claim form that he was 

in the performance of duty at the time of the alleged incident. Appellant stopped work on 

December 26, 2019.

An unsigned December 26, 2019 patient visit information form indicated that appellant 

received treatment on that date by Dr. William Barker, Board-certified in emergency medicine, 

following a motor vehicle accident (MVA) with no apparent injury. An unsigned work release 

form indicated that he could resume work on December 30, 2019.

In a development letter dated January 7, 2020, OWCP advised appellant of the factual and 

medical information required to establish his claim. In a separate letter of even date, it requested 

further information from the employing establishment regarding the circumstances surrounding 

the motor vehicle accident. OWCP afforded both parties 30 days to submit the requested 

information.

Subsequently, OWCP received the first page of an authorization for examination and/or 

treatment (Form CA-16) dated December 27, 2019 from the employing establishment authorizing 

Fauquier Hospital to provide office and/or hospital treatment as necessary for appellant’s 

December 26, 2019 injury. 

A December 26, 2019 hospital report indicated that an ambulance transported appellant to 

the hospital on that date following an MVA with entrapment. In a report of even date, Dr. Barker 

related that appellant was a belted driver “involved in a semi head on collision, with subsequent 

rollover of his vehicle.” He had no complaints of pain or a specific injury. Appellant related that 

he may have fallen asleep at the wheel. 

A computerized tomography (CT) scan of appellant’s head and cervical spine obtained on 

December 26, 2019 revealed no acute findings. 

An unsigned December 26, 2019 accident investigation worksheet from the employing 

establishment indicated that the police had charged appellant with reckless driving/failure to 

maintain control of his vehicle. 

Appellant returned to his usual employment on December 30, 2019 without restrictions.

By decision dated February 10, 2020, OWCP accepted that the December 26, 2019

employment incident occurred in the performance of duty as alleged. However, it denied 

appellant’s claim, finding that he had not submitted medical evidence containing a medical 

diagnosis in connection with the accepted December 26, 2019 employment incident. 

Consequently, OWCP found that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as 

defined by FECA. 
3

On December 16, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration.3 In a statement dated 

December 7, 2022, he related that OWCP had paid two of his December 26, 2019 hospital bills,

but that a third bill arising from his trip to the hospital on that date had not been paid. Appellant

related that he was unaware of the bill until he reviewed his credit report.

By decision dated January 20, 2023, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

as it was untimely 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.4 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.5 Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date (i.e.,

the “received date” in OWCP’s Integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS).6 

Imposition of this one-year filing limitation does not constitute an abuse of discretion. 7

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 

decision was in error.8 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.9 In this regard, OWCP will limit its focus to a review of how the newly submitted 

evidence bears on the prior evidence of record.10

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

issue which was decided by OWCP.11 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 

3 On October 14, 2022 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) of the need for medical treatment at an 

unspecified date. On November 14, 2022 OWCP informed him that it could not consider his Form CA-2a as it had 

denied his claim, and instructed him to follow his appeal rights. 

4

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).

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).

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

7 D.M., Docket No. 22-1152 (issued March 28, 2023); 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).

8

See 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); R.S., Docket No. 19-0180 (issued December 5, 2019); M.H., Docket No. 18-0623 

(issued October 4, 2018); Charles J. Prudencio, 41 ECAB 499 (1990).

9 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); supra note 6 at Chapter 2.1602.5 (September 2020).

10 J.M., Docket No. 19-1842 (issued April 23, 2020); Robert G. Burns, 57 ECAB 657 (2006).

11 J.M., Docket No. 22-0630 (issued February 10, 2023); S.C., Docket No. 18-0126 (issued May 14, 2016).
4

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.12

OWCP 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 (for example, proof that a schedule award was miscalculated). Evidenc e 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.13 The Board makes an independent determination of whether a claimant has demonstrated 

clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP.14

ANALYSIS

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.

OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration on December 7, 2022, more than 

one year after the last merit decision dated February 10, 2020. Appellant’s request was, therefore, 

untimely filed. Consequently, he must demonstrate clear evidence of error.15

The Board finds that appellant has not demonstrated clear evidence of error. This issue is 

medical in nature and must be addressed by medical evidence. 16 As noted, to establish clear 

evidence of error, a claimant must submit evidence relevant to the issue that was decided by 

OWCP.17 Appellant, however, did not submit medical evidence in support of his claim.

On appeal appellant contends that one of his bills from his hospital treatment on the date 

of the employment incident remained unpaid. He included a bill from the Virginia Emergency 

Medical Association relating to his treatment by Dr. Barker, Board-certified in emergency 

medicine, and a nurse practitioner, at Fauquier Hospital on December 26, 2019. However, the 

only issue before the Board is whether 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. The Board finds that he has not provided evidence of 

12 C.M., Docket No. 19-1211 (issued August 5, 2020); Robert G. Burns, supra note 10.

13 J.S., Docket No. 16-1240 (issued December 1, 2016);supra note 6 at Chapter 2.1602.5(a) (September 2020).

14 U.C., Docket No. 19-1753 (issued June 10, 2020); D.S., Docket No. 17-0407 (issued May 24, 2017).

15 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); R.P., Docket No. 22-0686 (issued September 30, 2022); J.F., Docket No. 22-0572 (issued 

September 20, 2022); S.M., Docket No. 16-0270 (issued April 26, 2016).

16 See J.J., Docket No. 19-0977 (issued December 31, 2020); D.V., Docket No. 19-0588 (issued August 5, 2019).

17 S.M., Docket No. 19-1961 (issued January 28, 2021). 
5

sufficient probative value or raised a substantial question as to the correctness of OWCP’s 

decision. Thus, appellant has not established clear evidence of error.18

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.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 20, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 24, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

18 See D.R., Docket No. 22-0556 (issued October 25, 2022); M.B., Docket No. 17-1505 (issued January 9, 2018).