United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Houston, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0472

Issued: September 20, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Stephanie Leet, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On February 17, 2023 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a January 30, 

2023 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk 

of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 23-0472.

On April 10, 1999 appellant, then a 31-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on April 10, 1999 he sustained a lumbar sprain, displacement of L4 disc 

without myelopathy, and lumbosacral neuritis due to moving large amounts of mail while in the 

performance of duty. He stopped work on April 11, 1999. OWCP initially accepted appellant’s

claim for lumbar sprain, and subsequently expanded the acceptance of his claim to include lumbar 

intervertebral disc displacement and lumbosacral neuritis. It paid him wage-loss compensation on 

the supplemental rolls, effective March 29, 2001, andon the periodic rolls, effective May 18, 2003. 

By decision dated June 27, 2013, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

and medical benefits, effective June 30, 2013, finding that he had no disability or residuals related 

to his April 10, 1999 employment injury after that date. 

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

After the termination of his compensation, appellant filed a series of requests for 

reconsideration of OWCP’s June 27, 2013 decision. By nonmerit decisions dated November 14, 

2016, May 24, 2018, and November 15, 2021, OWCP denied his requests for reconsideration as 

they were untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. 

On January 20, 2023 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s June 27, 2013 

decision. In support of his request for reconsideration, he submitted a 17-page brief in which 

counsel presented arguments alleging that OWCP erred in its June 27, 2013 decision. Appellant

also submitted a number of medical reports, including those of Dr. Hassan Chahadeh, a Boardcertified physiatrist, Dr. Floyd Luckett, a physician Board-certified in internal medicine,

Dr. Howard Cotler, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, and Dr. Benoy Benny, a Board-certified 

physiatrist.

By decision dated January 30, 2023, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration, 

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

determining that his January 20, 2023 request for reconsideration was untimely, OWCP further 

found that he had not demonstrated clear evidence of error, and denied hisrequest for merit review 

by stating without elaboration, “As the documentation submitted on reconsideration lacks a new 

arguable case for error as well as lacks medical evidence relevant and pertinent to the contested 

matter at hand, your claim would ordinarily not be subject to merit review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128.” 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

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

merit review.2 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.3 Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date of 

the request for reconsideration as indicated by the received date in the Integrated Federal 

Employees’ Compensation System (IFECS).4 Imposition of this one-year filing limitation does 

not constitute an abuse of discretion.5 OWCP will consider an untimely request for reconsideration 

only if it demonstrates clear evidence of error in its most recent merit decision. The request must 

establish, on its face, that such decision was erroneous. 6 The term clear evidence of error is 

intended to represent a difficult standard. If clear evidence of error has not been presented, OWCP 

should deny the request by letter decision, which includes a brief evaluation of the evidence 

submitted and a finding made that clear evidence of error has not been shown. 7

Section 8124(a) of FECA provides that OWCP shall determine and make a finding of fact 

and an award for or against payment of compensation. 8 Its regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 

2

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see also A.B., Docket No. 19-1539 (issued January 27, 2020); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).

3

20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).

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

5 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).

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b).

7

See supra note 4 at Chapter 2.1602.5a, b (September 2020).

8

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).
3

provide that the decision of the Director of OWCP shall contain findings and facts and a statement 

of reasons.9 As well, OWCP’s procedures provide that the reasoning behind OWCP’s evaluation 

should be clear enough for the reader to understand the precise defect of the claim, and the kind of 

evidence which would overcome it.10

In the present case, appellant submitted a 17-page brief containing argument, as well as a

series of medical reports. However, in its January 30, 2023 decision, OWCP summarily found 

that he had not demonstrated clear evidence of error in OWCP’s June 27, 2013 decision without 

discussing any of the evidence and argument submitted by him. Given that OWCP did not provide 

adequate findings, facts, and a statement of reasonsregarding the evidenceand argument appellant 

submitted in support of his request for reconsideration, he would not understand the precise defect 

of the claim and the kind of evidence which would overcome it. 11 Therefore, the case must be 

remanded to OWCP in order for it to provide adequate findings, facts, and a statement of reasons

in an appropriate decision regarding his request for reconsideration.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 30, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside, and the case is remanded to the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs for further proceedings consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: September 20, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

9

20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

10 Supra note 4 at Chapter 2.1400.5 (February 2013) (all decisions should contain findings of fact sufficient to 

identify the benefit being denied and the reason for the disallowance).

11 See id.