United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING AND 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER/FACILITY,

Los Angeles, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0885

Issued: January 17, 2024

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se,

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 8, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 18, 2023 nonmerit decision

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

OWCP’s last merit decision, dated November 13, 2018, 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing as 

untimely filed, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8124.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 19, 2018 appellant, then a 57-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 16, 2018 he sustained insect bites causing itching 

and swelling to his arms and hands while in the performance of duty. He did not stop work. 

Along with his claim, appellant submitted an undated statement relating that on 

September 8, 2018 he was bitten by insects on his left arm and right hand and finger, resulting in 

swelling and itching that subsided two to four days later. He indicated that on September 16, 2018 

he was also bitten on his left arm above his left elbow, resulting in swelling and itching. In a 

September 19, 2018 statement, appellant indicated that on September 8 and 16, 2018 he was 

repeatedly bitten by an insect on his arms, hands, and fingers, which caused swelling and 

continuous itching.

In an October 9, 2018 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish his claim 

and provided a factual questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

submit the necessary evidence. 

Thereafter, appellant submitted additional medical evidence. 

By decision dated November 13, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that he had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the incident occurred as 

alleged. Consequently, it found that he had not met the requirements to establish an injury as 

defined by FECA.

Appellant continued to submit additional medical evidence. 

In a request dated December 6, 2022, appellant requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

By decision dated January 18, 2023, OWCP denied appellant’s request for a telephonic 

hearing as untimely under 5 U.S.C. § 8124, finding that the request was not made within 30 days 

of the November 13, 2018 decision. It further exercised discretion and determined that the issue 

in this case could equally well be addressed by a request for reconsideration before OWCP along 

with the submission of new evidence.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Section 8124(b)(1) of FECA provides that “a claimant for compensation not satisfied with 

a decision of the Secretary is entitled, on request made within 30 days after the date of the issuance 

of the decision, to a hearing on his [or her] claim before a representative of the Secretary.

”2

 

Sections 10.617 and 10.618 of the federal regulations implementing this section of FECA provide 

that a claimant shall be afforded a choice of an oral hearing or a review of the written record by a 

2

5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1).
3

representative of the Secretary.

3

 A claimant is entitled to a hearing or review of the written record 

as a matter of right only if the request is filed within the requisite 30 days as determined by 

postmark or other carrier’s date marking and before the claimant has requested reconsideration.

4

 

Although there is no right to a review of the written record or an oral hearing if not requested 

within the 30-day time period, OWCP may within its discretionary powers grant or deny 

appellant’s request and must exercise its discretion.

5

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing as 

untimely filed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b).

OWCP’s regulations provide that the request for an oral hearing must be made within 30 

days of the date of the decision for which review is sought.

6

 Under its regulations and procedures, 

the timeliness of a request for a hearing is determined based on the postmark of the envelope 

containing the request. If the postmark is not legible, the request will be deemed timely unless 

OWCP has kept evidence of date of delivery on the record reflecting that the request is untimely.

7

 

Otherwise, the date of the letter itself should be used.

8

 Because appellant’s hearing request was 

dated December 6, 2022, it postdated OWCP’s November 13, 2018 decision by more than 30 days 

and, therefore, was untimely. Consequently, appellant was not entitled to an oral hearing as a 

matter of right.

9

OWCP, however, has the discretionary authority to grant the request and it must exercise 

such discretion.

10

 The Board finds that, in the January 18, 2023 decision, OWCP properly 

exercised its discretion by determining that the issue in the case could be equally well addressed 

through a request for reconsideration before OWCP, along with the submission of additional 

evidence.

The Board has held that the only limitation on OWCP’s authority is reasonableness. An 

abuse of discretion is generally shown through proof of manifest error, clearly unreasonable 

3

20 C.F.R. §§ 10.616, 10.617.

4

Id. at § 10.616(a).

5

J.T., Docket No. 18-0664 (issued August 12, 2019);Eddie Franklin, 51 ECAB 223 (1999); Delmont L. Thompson, 

51 ECAB 155 (1999).

6 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Hearings and Review of the Written Record, Chapter 

2.1601.4(a) (September 2020).

7

Id. at Chapter 2.1601.4(a) (September 2020). See T.B., Docket No. 20-0158 (issued March 18, 2022).

8 K.B., Docket No. 21-1038 (issued February 28, 2022);see J.H., Docket No. 06-1565 (issued February 20, 2007);

James B. Moses, 52 ECAB 465 (2001); citing WilliamJ. Kapfhammer, 42 ECAB 271 (1990); see also Douglas 

McLean, 42 ECAB 759 (1991).

9

See D.S., Docket No. 21-1296 (issued March 23, 2022).

10 See P.C., Docket No. 19-1003 (issued December 4, 2019).
4

exercise of judgment, or actions taken, which are contrary to both logic and probable deductions 

from established facts.

11

 The evidence of record does not indicate that OWCP abused its discretion 

by denying appellant’s request for an oral hearing. Accordingly, the Board finds that OWCP 

properly denied his request for a hearing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b) as untimely filed.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing as 

untimely filed, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b).

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 18, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 17, 2024

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, 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

11 T.B., Docket No. 20-0158 (issued March 18, 2022).