United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

Z.Y., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ROY ROYALL POST 

OFFICE, Houston, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0942

Issued: November 17, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 23, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 11, 2023 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from the last merit decision dated August 23, 2022 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.2

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(b).

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the January 11, 2023 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, 

the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 7, 2016 appellant, then a 42-year-old carrier technician, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that day she sustained lower back and knee injuries when she 

tripped over a mat or a tub of mail while in performance of duty. She stopped work on 

April 7, 2016. By decision dated May 4, 2016,OWCP accepted the claim for lumbar intervertebral 

disc displacement. It subsequently expanded acceptance of appellant’s claim to include mid 

cervical region disc displacement, left knee sprain, cervicalgia, and lumbar radiculopathy. OWCP 

paid her on the supplemental rolls commencing May 23, 2016, on the periodic rolls from 

December 11, 2016 through July 22, 2017, and on the supplemental rolls from July 23, 2017

through May 25, 2021. 

On July 7, 2022 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for 20.20 hours of 

intermittent wage loss for medical care during the period June 22, 2021 through July 6, 2022

By decision dated August 23, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for intermittent wageloss compensation for the period June 22, 2021 through July 6, 2022. It found that the record 

contained no medical evidence supporting that she received medical treatment on the dates 

claimed. 

In an appeal request form dated December 8, 2022 and postmarked December 10, 2022, 

appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and 

Review regarding the August 23, 2022 decision. 

By decision dated January 11, 2023, 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 

entitlement to intermittent wage-loss compensation for medical treatment for the period June 22, 

2021 through July 6, 2022.

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 

3

5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1).

4

20 C.F.R. §§ 10.616, 10.617, and 10.618.

5

Id. at § 10.616(a).
3

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 request for an oral hearing as 

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

In an appeal request form dated December 8, 2022 and postmarked December 10, 2022, 

appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and 

Review; however, this request was made more than 30 days after OWCP’s August 23, 2022

decision. Section 8124(b)(1) is unequivocal on the time limitation for filing a request for a 

hearing.

7

 As such, the Board finds that the request was untimely filed, and appellant was not 

entitled to an oral hearing as a matter of right.

8

The Board further finds that OWCP, in its January 11, 2023 decision, properly exercised 

its discretionary authority, explaining that it had considered the matter, and denied appellant’s 

request for an oral hearing as her claim could be equally well addressed through a reconsideration 

request.

The Board has held that the only limitation on OWCP’s discretionary 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

 In this case, 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 her request 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 request for an oral hearing as 

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

6

S.N., Docket No. 22-2048 (issued April 3, 2023); G.H., Docket No. 22-0122 (issued May 20, 2022); E.E., Docket 

No. 20-1290 (issued July 21, 2021); J.T., Docket No. 18-0664 (issued August12, 2019); Eddie Franklin, 51 ECAB 

223 (1999); Delmont L. Thompson, 51 ECAB 155 (1999).

7

Supra note 3;V.S., Docket No. 22-1325 (issued December 16, 2022); K.N.,Docket No. 22-0647(issued August 29, 

2022); G.H., Docket No. 22-0122 (issued May 20, 2022).

8

See S.N., supra note 6; D.R., Docket No. 22-0361 (issued July 8, 2022); D.S.,Docket No. 21-1296 (issued 

March 23, 2022); P.C., Docket No. 19-1003 (issued December 4, 2019).

9

See V.S., supra note 7; S.I.,Docket No. 22-0538 (issued October 3, 2022); T.G., Docket No. 19-0904 (issued 

November 25, 2019); Daniel J. Perea, 42 ECAB 214 (1990).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 11, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: November 17, 2023

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