United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

COMMUNITY BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC, 

Jackson, TN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0340

Issued: July 28, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Emma Cull, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On January 4, 2020 appellant, through his representative, filed a timely appeal from a 

July 8, 2020 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The 

Clerk of the Appellate Board’s docketed the appeal as No. 21-0340.

On March 18, 2019 appellant, then a 54-year-old licensed practical nurse, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 9, 2018 his left hip popped and he sustained lumbar 

pain which radiated to his left hip, thigh, and knee when he stood up from a chair while in the 

performance of duty.

After initial development of the claim, by decision dated April 30, 2019, OWCP denied 

appellant’s claim, finding the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed 

 

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

condition causally related to the May 9, 2019 incident. It concluded, therefore, that the 

requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

OWCP received an x-ray report dated May 31, 2018 which related findings of left hip 

nondisplaced tear and moderate arthrosis in the left hip.

Appellant submitted medical reports dated October 15 and November 19, 2019, and 

January 21, 2020 from Dr. Stacey Hunt-Okolo, an obstetrician and gynecologist. Dr. Hunt-Okolo

related that on May 9, 2018, appellant heard a loud pop in his left hip as he stood up from his desk 

chair. She diagnosed left hip avascular necrosis, tear of labrum, effusion, unilateral primary 

osteoarthritis, left knee chondromalacia patellae, and a complex tear medial meniscus. Dr. HuntOkolo opined that appellant sustained a traumatic work injury which was caused by the shearing 

force seen with twisting the hip while simultaneously standing which created significant stress at 

the left hip joint. She also stated that his left knee injury was caused by forcefully twisting his left 

bent knee as he quickly stood up from his chair. In a report dated February 25, 2020,

Dr. Hunt-Okolo diagnosed left hip injuries and left knee injuries. She also stated that the injuries 

were directly and causally related to appellant’s work duties. 

On May 13, 2020 appellant, through his representative, requested reconsideration of 

OWCP’s April 30, 2019 decision, which the representative mailed to the London, KY office.

By decision dated June 12, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration, 

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

On July 2, 2020 appellant, through a representative, requested reconsideration. 

Appellant’s representative argued that she did not know that the request for reconsideration should 

have been sent to the district office in San Antonio, TX, instead of London KY, and that if the 

request had not been rerouted it would have arrived on time.

By decision dated July 8, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration

finding that he neither raised substantive legal questions, nor submitted new and relevant evidence.

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision. 

OWCP’s regulations2and procedures3establish a one-year time limit for requesting 

reconsideration, which begins on the date of the last merit decision issued in the case. A right to 

reconsideration within one year also accompanies any subsequent merit decision on the issues.4 

The most recent merit decision was OWCP’s April 30, 2019 decision. As appellant’s request for 

reconsideration was received on July 2, 2020, more than one year after the April 30, 2019 merit 

 

2 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a); see J.W., Docket No. 18-0703 (issued November 14, 2018); Alberta Dukes, 56 ECAB 

247 (2005).

3 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 (February 2016); 

Veletta C. Coleman, 48 ECAB 367, 370 (1997).

4 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); see A.M., Docket No. 20-0143 (issued October 28, 2020); Debra McDavid, 57 ECAB 

149 (2005).
3

decision, the Board finds that it was untimely filed. Consequently, appellant must demonstrate 

clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP in its April 30, 2019 decision.5

In denying appellant’s reconsideration request, OWCP did not review the request under the 

clear evidence of error standard and it did not address appellant’s argument that his prior request 

for reconsideration, received by OWCP on May 13, 2020 was untimely as it was rerouted from 

London, KY to San Antonio, TX. Rather, it applied the standard of review for timely requests for 

reconsideration. As OWCP applied the wrong standard of review to the untimely request for 

reconsideration, the Board will set aside OWCP’s July 8, 2020 decision and remand the case for 

proper review under the clear evidence of error standard as required by regulations.6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 8, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further review under the clear 

evidence of error standard.

Issued: July 28, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

5

Id. at § 10.607(b); see M.W., Docket No. 17-0892 (issued May 21, 2018); see S.M., Docket No. 16-0270 (issued 

April 26, 2016).

6 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b). See L.D., Docket No. 15-0865 (issued October 6, 2015).