United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

W.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Fayetteville, NC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0398

Issued: November 18, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On January 22, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 27, 2021 nonmerit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

docketed the appeal as Docket No. 22-0398. 

On June 21, 2014 appellant, then a 38-year-old modified mail processing clerk, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on June 20, 2014 she was struck in the right thigh 

by a wire cage cart while in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for lumbar sprain 

and right knee sprain. It subsequently expanded its acceptance of the claim to include an 

aggravation of right knee osteoarthritis and an aggravation of a bulging lumbar disc. OWCP paid 

appellant wage-loss compensation on the periodic rolls effective June 25, 2017. 

On April 20, 2020 the employing establishment offered appellant a position as a full-time 

modified parcel post distribution machine operator and request that she report to work on 

April 27, 2020. 

In an April 28, 2020 memorandum of telephone call (Form CA-110), the employing 

establishment advised that appellant had refused the job offer and had not reported to work on 

April 27, 2020. 

On April 28, 2020 OWCP advised appellant that the offered position was suitable and 

afforded her 30 days to accept the position or provide reasons for her refusal. 
2

On May 16, 2020 R.V., a supervisor/manager, amended the April 20, 2020 job offer to 

reflect that appellantwould perform the duties of the offered position up to six hours per day. R.V.

initialed the changes and signed the job offer. Appellant accepted the offered position.

On May 18, 2020 appellant provided OWCP with the May 16, 2020 job offer modified by 

R.V. She related that the plant manager had also agreed to her modified hours.

In separate correspondence dated May 18, 2020, appellant related that after R.V. and the 

plant manager modified her work hours, she had accepted the offer and returned to work for two 

days. She indicated that she subsequently received a call advising her not to return to work and 

indicating that her work hours would not be changed.

On June 1, 2020 OWCP notified appellant that her reasons for refusing the position that 

was offered on April 20, 2020 were not valid and provided her 15 days to accept that position or 

have her entitlement to compensation benefits terminated. It advised her that the position offered 

on April 20, 2020 remained available.

In a July 1, 2020 Form CA-110, OWCP requested that the employing establishment advise 

whether the original position offered was permanent. In a July 10, 2020 response, the employing 

establishment specified that the job that was offered on April 20, 2020 was permanent. 

By decision dated July 10, 2020, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

and entitlement to a schedule award effective July 8, 2020 under 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c) as she had 

refused an offer of suitable work. It found that she had signed a job offer on May 15, 2020 that 

had been modified without the approval of the employing establishment. 

On July 11, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. 

By decision dated July 27, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

finding that it was untimely and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. It noted that she had 

not signed her appeal request letter and that it was not received until July 11, 2021, more than one 

year after the July 10, 2020 decision.

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that appellant’s request for 

reconsideration was timely filed. Section 10.607(a) of OWCP’s implementing regulations 

provides that a request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of the date 

of the decision for which review is sought.1 OWCP’s procedures further provide that when 

determining the one-year period for requesting reconsideration, the last day of the period should 

be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. 2 One year following OWCP’s 

July 10, 2020 merit decision was July 10, 2021, which was a Saturday. Accordingly, appellant 

had until Monday, July 12, 2021 to request reconsideration. Because OWCP received her 

1

20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a). The one-year period begins on the next day after the date of the original contested decision. 

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 2.1602.4a (September 2020).

2 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, id. 
3

reconsideration request on July 11, 2021, the Board finds that it was timely filed.3 The clear 

evidence of error standard utilized by OWCP in its July 27, 2021 decision is appropriate only for 

untimely reconsideration requests.4 Therefore, the Board will set aside OWCP’s July 27, 2021 

decision and remand the case for an appropriate decision applying the correct standard for timely 

requests for reconsideration.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 27, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this order of the Board. 

Issued: November 18, 2022

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

3

See Order Remanding Case, B.W., Docket No. 20-1512 (issued August24, 2021); J.H., Docket No. 18-1367 

(issued July 17, 2019); C.B., Docket No. 13-1732 (issued January 28, 2014); StevenE. Pratt, Docket No. 93-443 

(issued February 2, 1994).

4

See 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); see also id.