United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, NORTH KENNER 

POST OFFICE, Kenner, LA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0178

Issued: March 9, 2023

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 November 16, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from July 25 and August 24, 2022

nonmerit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). As more than

180 days has elapsed from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated May 12, 2022, to the filing of this

appeal, pursuantto the FederalEmployees’CompensationAct1(FECA) and 20C.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,following the August24, 2022 nonmerit decision, OWCP and the Board received additional 

evidence. The Board’s Rules of Procedureprovides: “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 requests for an oral hearing by an 

OWCP hearing representative as untimely filed, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 12, 2021 appellant, then a 38-year-old custodial laborer, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 24, 2021 she experienced chest pain, a panic attack, 

situational anxiety, and headaches due to sexual harassment and discrimination while in the 

performance of duty. She stopped work on May 13, 2021. On January 13, 2022 OWCP accepted 

the claim for panic disorder (episodic paroxysmal anxiety without agoraphobia) and other 

specified anxiety disorders. It paid appellant wage-loss compensation for total disability on the 

supplemental rolls from July 1, 2021 through March 11, 2022. 

In a duty status report(Form CA-17) dated July 23, 2021,Dr. John Wells, a Board-certified 

psychiatrist, released appellant to return to work provided she could be transferred to another 

facility. In a subsequent Form CA-17 dated January 21, 2022, he released her to return to work in

a “different location than where the event occurred” and “not working with the employee who 

harassed her.”

On March 8, 2022 the employing establishment offered appellant a laborer custodial 

position at its Gretna, Louisiana location, effective March 14, 2022. 

Appellant did not return report for work on March 14, 2022. She indicated that she was 

advised by a new physician not to return to work. 

On March 30, 2022 appellant filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability 

from work beginning March 12, 2022 and continuing.

In a development letter dated April 6, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

in her claim for compensation. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed

and afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence. No response was received.

By decision dated May 12, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation, 

finding that she had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish disability from work 

during the claimed period due to the accepted employment conditions.

In correspondence dated and postmarked June 29, 2022, appellant requested an oral 

hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

By decision dated July 25, 2022, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review denied 

appellant’s request for an oral hearing, finding that it was untimely filed. It further exercised its 

discretion and determined that the issue in the case could equally well be addressed by a request 

for reconsideration before OWCP along with the submission of new evidence supporting her claim 

for disability. 
3

In correspondence dated and postmarked July 25, 2022, appellant again requested an oral 

hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. In a statement of 

even date, she submitted a complaint regarding her claims examiner and requested a new claims 

examiner be assigned to her claim. 

By decision dated August 24, 2022, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review denied 

appellant’s request for an oral hearing, finding that it was untimely filed. It again exercised its 

discretion and determined that the issue in the case could equally well be addressed by a request 

for reconsideration before OWCP along with the submission of new evidence supporting her claim 

for disability. 

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.”

3

 

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 

representative of the Secretary.4 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.5 

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.6

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s requests for an oral hearingbefore 

an OWCP hearing representative as untimely filed, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8124.

OWCP’s regulations provide that the request for a hearing or review of the written record 

must be made within 30 days of the date of the decision for which a review is sought. Because 

appellant’s requestsfor a review of the written record were submitted on June 29 and July 25, 2022

they postdated OWCP’s May 12, 2022 decision by more than 30 days and, accordingly, were

untimely. She was, therefore, not entitled to an oral hearing as a matter of right.7

3

Supra note 1 at § 8124(b)(1).

4

20 C.F.R. §§ 10.616, 10.617.

5

Id. at § 10.616(a).

6 W.H., Docket No. 20-0562 (issued August 6, 2020); P.C., Docket No. 19-1003 (issued December 4, 2019); M.G., 

Docket No. 17-1831 (issued February 6, 2018); Eddie Franklin, 51 ECAB 223 (1999); DelmontL. Thompson, 51 

ECAB 155 (1999).

7

See K.B., Docket No. 21-1038 (issued February 28, 2022); M.F., Docket No. 21-0878 (issued January 6, 2022);

see also P.C., Docket No. 19-1003 (issued December 4, 2019).
4

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

such discretion.8 The Board finds that, in the July 25 and August 24, 2022 decisions, OWCP 

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

addressed through a request for reconsideration, 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 

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

from established facts.9 The Board finds that the evidence of record does not indicate that OWCP 

abused its discretion in connection with its denial of appellant’s request for a review of the written 

record.

Accordingly, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s requests for an oral

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

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s requests for an oral hearing by an 

OWCP hearing representative as untimely filed, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b).

8

Id.

9

Id.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 24 and July 25, 2022 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: March 9, 2023

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