United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bloomfield Hills, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0216

Issued: September 23, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Anthony S. Arenas, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 22, 2021 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from a 

September 22, 2021 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

(OWCP). As more than 180 days has elapsed from the last merit decision, dated January 25, 2019, 

to the filing of this appeal, pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 

20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3 the Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of this case.

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

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s August 26, 2021 request for 

reconsideration, finding that the only appeal option was to the Board. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.3 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

in the Board’s prior decisions are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as 

follows.

On November 25, 2006 appellant, then a 32-year-old distribution clerk, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed grade 1 anterolisthesis of 

L5-S1 due to factors of her federal employment, repetitive lifting of magazines. She noted that 

she first became aware of her condition in November 1998. Appellant did not stop work. On 

February 5, 2002 a nonwork accident occurred when a car hood fell onto her neck causing 

headaches and severe neck and low back pain. Appellant continued to work with restrictions. She 

stopped work on September 11, 2008.

By decision dated March 5, 2007, OWCP denied the claim, finding that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the diagnosed condition was causally related 

to her accepted employment activities.

Appellant subsequently submitted multiple requests for reconsideration. OWCP, however,

denied modification by decisions dated April 1, 2008 through January 25, 2019.

4

On May 18, 2020 OWCP received a request for reconsideration dated December 18, 2019 

from appellant’s representative. A handwritten note at the bottom of the request indicated that it

was sent by certified mail on December 18, 2019. Appellant also submitted additional medical 

evidence. 

By decision dated July 15, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s May 18, 2020 request for 

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

In a letter dated July 22, 2020, appellant’s representative contended that OWCP failed to 

address a December 18, 2019 request for reconsideration and requested a merit decision. He 

repeated this request on September 30 and November 16, 2020, February 25 and March 23, 2021.

On July 14, 2021 OWCP provided appellant with a copy of the July 15, 2020 decision 

denying the request for reconsideration.

3 Docket No. 16-0110 (issued April4, 2016); Docket No. 14-106 (issued April17, 2014); Docket No. 11-1886 

(issued April 17, 2012); Docket No. 08-2474 (issued May 19, 2009).

4 The April1 and September 3, 2008, April26, 2011, and June3, 2013 decisions of OWCP were appealed to the 

Board. The Board affirmed those decisions. Id.
3

On August 26, 2021 appellant, through her representative, again requested reconsideration

of the July 15, 2020 nonmerit decision. She again contended that she had submitted a request for 

reconsideration on December 18, 2019, which should have been considered timely received 

pursuant to the mailbox rule.

By decision dated September 22, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s August 26, 2021 request 

for reconsideration,finding that the only appeal option was to the Board.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Pursuant to section 8128(a) of FECA, OWCP has the discretion to reopen a case for further 

merit review.5 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.6 Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date, i.e., 

the “received date” in OWCP’s Integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS).7 

Imposition of this one-year filing limitation does not constitute an abuse of discretion.8

OWCP regulations provide that:

“Where the request is timely but fails to meet at least one of the standards described 

in § 10.606(b)(3), or where the request is untimely and fails to present any clear 

evidence of error, OWCP will deny the application for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for a review on the merits. A decision denying an application

for reconsideration cannot be the subject of another application for reconsideration. 

The only review for this type of nonmerit decision is an appeal to the ECAB (see

§ 10.625), and OWCP will not entertain a request for reconsideration or a hearing 

on this decision denying reconsideration.”

9

 

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s August 26, 2021 request for 

reconsideration of the merits of her claim, finding that the only appeal option was to the Board. 

By decision dated January 25, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its prior decisions. On 

May 18, 2020 it received a request for reconsideration dated December 18, 2019. A handwritten 

note at the bottom of the request indicated that it was sent by certified mail on December 18, 2019. 

5

Supra note 1 at § 8128(a); see M.G., Docket No. 21-0893 (issued December 27, 2021); T.J., Docket No. 21-0586 

(issued September 30, 2021); L.W.,Docket No. 18-1475 (issued February 7, 2019); Y.S.,Docket No. 08-0440 (issued 

March 16, 2009).

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).

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

8 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).

9

See 20 C.F.R. §10.608(b).
4

Appellant also submitted additional medical evidence. By decision dated July 15, 2020, OWCP 

denied her request for reconsideration, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate 

clear evidence of error. On August 26, 2021 appellant, through her representative, requested 

reconsideration of the July 15, 2020 nonmerit decision. 

As explained above, OWCP’s regulations provide in part that, “A decision denying an

application for reconsideration cannot be the subject of another application for reconsideration. 

The only review for this type of nonmerit decision is an appeal to the ECAB (see § 10.625), and

OWCP will not entertain a request for reconsideration or a hearing on this decision denying 

reconsideration.”

10

 As appellant requested reconsideration of the July 15, 2020 nonmerit decision,

OWCP properly found that the only appeal option was to the Board. Therefore, the Board finds 

that OWCP properly denied appellant’s reconsideration request pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(b).

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s August 26, 2021 request for 

reconsideration of the merits of her claim,finding that the only option for appeal was to the Board.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 22, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 23, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

10 Id.