United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

I.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Capitol Heights, MD, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1146

Issued: January 31, 2022

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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On July 20, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 26, 2021 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 14, 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

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal and following the February26, 2021 

decision. 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

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.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 17, 2000 appellant, then a 53-year-old small package and bundle sorter 

clerk, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on March 27, 2000 he sustained 

pain in his right elbow and left hand as a result of repetitive keying and moving mail while in the 

performance of duty. He stopped work on August 23, 2000. OWCP converted the claim to an 

occupational disease claim and accepted it for right medial epicondylitis, villonodular synovitis of 

the left hand, bilateral tenosynovitis of the hands and wrists, and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. 

It paid appellant wage-loss compensation for intermittent disability from work from May 2007 to 

September 2016. Appellant returned to modified duty on December 11, 2016.

On September 18, 2018 appellant filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for 

intermittent disability from work during the period May 28, 2013 through April 20, 2018.

In a development letter dated November 6, 2018, OWCP requested that appellant provide 

medical evidence establishing that he was disabled from work due to intermittent disability during 

the period May 28, 2013 through April 20, 2018. It afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence.

On November 30, 2018 Dr. Eric G. Dawson, an orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed rotator cuff 

tendinitis with secondary degenerative changes.

By decision dated January 18, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation due to intermittent disability during the period May 28, 2013 through 

April 20, 2018.

Thereafter, OWCP received a report dated November 28, 2018 fromDr. Daniel R. Ignacio, 

a Board-certified physiatrist, who diagnosed chronic lumbar sprain with neuritis, chronic lumbar 

disc displacement with radiculopathy, chronic bilateral knee chondromalacia and sprain, chronic 

pelvic syndrome, and chronic pain syndrome. Dr. Ignacio found that appellant should continue 

working limited duty. He advised that appellant had been unable to work from May 15 to 26, 

June 6 to 21 and June 24 to 28, and July 1 to 31, 2013, March 14 to 22, March 29 to May 5, and 

November 29 to December 15, 2017. In a handwritten addendum dated March 7, 2019,

Dr. Ignacio opined that appellant was disabled from work for the periods May 22, 2013, October 3 

to November 3, 2017, and March 29 to April 20, 2018.

On November 19, 2019 OWCP received CA-7 forms from appellant dated September 18, 

2018 claiming wage-loss compensation due to disability from employment for the periods May 15

to 26, 2013 and October 3 to November 3, 2017.

On November 19, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration. He asserted that he had 

previously submitted medical evidence supporting the claimed periods of disability. Appellant 
3

further noted that OWCP had omitted two periods from consideration in the January 18, 2019 

denial decision, May 15 to 26, 2013 and October 3 through November 3, 2017.

By decision dated February 14, 2020, OWCP vacated in part and affirmed in part its 

January 18, 2019 decision. It determined that appellant had established entitlement to 

compensation for total disability for the periods May 28, June 6 to 21, June 24 to 28, July 1 to 31, 

2013, and March 14 to 22 and November 29 to December 15, 2017. OWCP further found, 

however, that he had not established entitlement to wage-loss compensation due to disability for 

the periods March 29 to May 5, 2017 and March 29 to April 20, 2018. 

OWCP subsequently received physical therapy reports, duty status reports (Form CA-17), 

and medical reports dated February 2020 through February 2021 regarding appellant’s current 

condition. 

On February 19, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. In a February 1, 2021 

statement, he again asserted that OWCP had failed to adjudicate his claim for wage-loss 

compensation due to disability from May 15 to 26, 2013 and October 3 to November 3, 2017. 

Appellant indicated that he was resubmitting the November 28, 2018 report from Dr. Ignacio in 

support of his claim. 

By decision dated February 26, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration, finding thatit 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.3 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.4 Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date (i.e., 

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

5

 

Imposition of this one-year filing limitation does not constitute an abuse of discretion.6

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.7 It’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 

3

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).

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).

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

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

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

7

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

499 (1990).
4

claimant’s request for reconsideration demonstrates “clear evidence of error” on the part of 

OWCP.8 In this regard, OWCP will limit its focus to a review of how the newly submitted 

evidence bears on the prior evidence of record.9

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

issue which was decided by OWCP.10 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 

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.11

OWCP’s 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). Evidence 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.12 The Board makes an independent determination of whether a claimant has demonstrated 

clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP.13

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.

A request for reconsideration must be received within one year of the date of OWCP’s 

decision for which review is sought.14 As appellant’s request for reconsideration was not received 

until February 19, 2021, more than one year after the issuance of OWCP’s last merit decision dated 

8 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);supranote 6 at Chapter 2.1602.5 (September 2020).

9

J.M., Docket No. 19-1842 (issued April23, 2020); Robert G. Burns, 57 ECAB 657 (2006).

10 S.C.,Docket No. 18-0126 (issued May 14, 2016).

11 C.M., Docket No. 19-1211 (issued August 5, 2020).

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

13 D.S., Docket No. 17-0407 (issued May 24, 2017).

14 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).
5

February 14, 2020, it was untimely filed. Consequently, he must demonstrate clear evidence of 

error by OWCP in its February 14, 2020 decision.15

The underlying issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation for intermittent disability from work for the periods March 29 to May 5, 2017 and 

March 29 to April 20, 2018. On reconsideration, appellant asserted that OWCP failed to 

adjudicate his claim for wage-loss compensation for the periods May 15 to 26, 2013 and October 3 

to November 3, 2017. He submitted medical evidence regarding his current condition dated 

February 2020 through February 2021. As previously noted, to demonstrate clear evidence of 

error, a claimant must submit evidence relevant to the issue which was decided by OWCP. 16 This 

evidence, however, is irrelevant to the underlying issue as it does not address whether the appellant 

was disabled during the claimed periods of March 29 to May 5, 2017 and March 29 to 

April 20, 2018.17 Thus, appellant has failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

On appeal, appellant asserts that his request for reconsideration was timely filed as 

demonstrated by a February 2, 2021 certified mail receipt showing delivery to OWCP on 

February 8, 2021. As explained above, timeliness is determined by the received date in iFECS. 

As the reconsideration was received on February 19, 2021, it was untimely.

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.

15 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); S.M., Docket No. 16-0270 (issued April26, 2016).

16 A.A., Docket No. 19-1219 (issued December 10, 2019); DeanD. Beets, 43 ECAB 1153 (1992).

17 Id.

18 Supra note 6.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 26, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 31, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board