United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.K., Appellant

and

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, NATIONAL 

MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, 

Washington, DC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1664

Issued: September 1, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Sally F. LaMacchia, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On September 25, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

September 15, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The 

Clerk of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 20-1664.

On August 1, 2019 appellant, then a 59-year-old supervisory work manager specialist, filed 

an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she aggravated her anxiety disorder due 

to factors of her federal employment. She indicated that she first became aware of her condition 

on June 21, 2019 and realized that it was caused or aggravated by factors of her federal 

employment on July 10, 2019. Appellant stopped work on July 11, 2019. 

By decision dated September 6, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that she actually experienced the alleged 

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

employment factors. It explained that there was no evidence to corroborate the specific 

employment incidents that she claimed caused or contributed to her alleged emotional condition. 

OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as 

defined by FECA. 

Appellant submitted additional evidence. On September 7, 2020 appellant, through 

counsel, requested reconsideration. By decision dated September 15, 2020, OWCP denied 

appellant’s request for reconsideration, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate 

clear evidence of error. It noted that herSeptember 7, 2020 reconsideration request was not mailed 

within one year of the last merit decision of September 6, 2019.

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that the case must be remanded to 

OWCP for application of the appropriate standard of review as appellant’s September 7, 2020 

request for reconsideration was timely filed.

2

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.3 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 a legal holiday. 4 One year 

following OWCP’s September 6, 2019 merit decision was Sunday, September 6, 2020. As the last 

day of the one-year filing period fell on a weekend, appellant had until the close of business on 

Monday, September 7, 2020 to timely request reconsideration. Because OWCP received

appellant’s request on September 7, 2020, the Board finds that it was timely filed. The clear 

evidence of error standard utilized by OWCP in its September 15, 2020 decision is appropriate 

only for untimely reconsideration requests.5 Therefore, the Board will set aside OWCP’s 

September 15, 2020 decision and remand the case for application of the appropriate standard of 

review for timely requests for reconsideration as set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).

6

 

Accordingly,

2 Order Remanding Case, R.M., Docket No. 20-0728 (issued October 21, 2020); T.L., Docket No. 19-1110 (issued 

August 11, 2020).

3

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 2.1602.4 (September 2020). 

4 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, id.

5

See 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b).

6 Order Remanding Case, P.J., Docket No. 19-0962 (issued December 30, 2019).
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 15, 2020 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: September 1, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board