United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, NORRIS CITY POST 

OFFICE, Norris City, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0571

Issued: September 27, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 21, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 19, 2023 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from the last merit decision, dated October 20, 2021, 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 to review the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration, 

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 12, 2016 appellant, then a 49-year-old postmaster, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging an emotional condition due to factors of her federal 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

employment, including working over 60 hours weekly with little help. She noted that she first 

became aware of her condition and realized its relationship to her federal employment on 

August 30, 2016. 

By decision dated April 5, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish that the employment factors occurred as described. It noted 

that she had not provided specific dates and duration of the occurrence of the reported work-related 

events. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as 

defined by FECA.

On May 2, 2017 appellant requested a hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch 

of Hearings and Review. The hearing was held on October 3, 2017.

By decision dated November 7, 2017, OWCP’s hearing representative modified the

April 5, 2017 decision to find that appellant often worked after 4:45 p.m. and worked on some 

Saturdays;however, the claim remained denied as it was not established that these instances caused 

appellant to work over 40 hours in a week. The remainder of the alleged incidents were found not 

to have occurred. 

On January 22, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration.

By decision dated April 16, 2019, OWCP denied modification of the November 7, 2017 

decision. It found that appellant had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the 

employment factors occurred as alleged. Specifically, OWCP found that appellant had not shown 

that there were any work incidents within the performance of duty.

On March 17, 2020 appellant again requested reconsideration.

By decision dated June 15, 2020, OWCP denied modification of the April 16, 2019 

decision. 

On August 11, 2020 appellant again requested reconsideration.

By decision dated October 29, 2020, OWCP denied modification of the June 15, 2020 

decision.

On July 22, 2021 appellant again requested reconsideration. 

By decision dated October 20, 2021, OWCP denied modification of the October 29, 2020 

decision.

On October 21, 2022 appellant again requested reconsideration.

In support thereof, OWCP received appellant’s candidate overview for the position of 

customer service supervisor. Appellant also submitted a plethora of posts from an online chat 

forum. The chats discussed issues at various employing establishment facilities. Appellant also 

submitted a settlement agreement dated June 4, 2009 pertaining to grievant D.E.; an e-mail dated 

January 21, 2015 regarding daily work requirements; a calendar bearing no identification from 
3

2016 indicating hours worked; an employing establishment letter dated February 21, 2017 noting 

that appellant would be allowed to use leave to cover an absence; a document dated June 2, 2017 

from T.C. documenting that a rural carrier had remarked that appellant would leave in the 

afternoon and not come back before 5:30; an August 15, 2017 letter; a supervisor’s statement 

regarding appellant’s disability retirement dated July 21, 2017; a statement from T.M. dated 

August 7, 2017 regarding an interaction with appellant and her sister on that day; a statement from 

appellant dated August 9, 2017 regarding her attempts to collect her personal belongings from 

July 22 to August 7, 2017; an e-mail dated August 17, 2017 noting an incident involving 

appellant’s sister; a letter dated September 16, 2017 from L.H. dealing with her own personnel 

matters and noting that appellant worked almost every Saturday between June 11 and August 9, 

2016; a letter from appellant to T.C. dated April 24, 2018 discussing personnel matters; an undated 

letter from D.E. concerning reduction of clerk hours at the employing establishment, noting that 

the postmaster had donated three hours of work time on October 4 and on October 6 had assisted 

a rural carrier; a letter dated June 6, 2018 from appellant to T.C. requesting documents; an undated 

union policy document regarding work assignment violations; a letter dated October 21, 2022; and 

an October 18, 2022 letter requesting reconsideration. A medical report dated October 12, 2022 

from Dr. Jacquelyn Muniz was also received.

By decision dated January 19, 2023, denied appellant’s request for reconsideration, finding 

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

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Section 8128(a) of FECA does not entitle a claimant to review of an OWCP decision as a 

matter of right.2 OWCP has discretionary authority in this regard and has imposed certain 

limitations in exercising its authority.3 One such limitation is that the request for reconsideration 

must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of the decision for which review is sought.4 

Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date, i.e., the “received date” in OWCP’s 

Integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS).5

OWCP may not deny a request for reconsideration solely because it was untimely filed. 

When a request for reconsideration is untimely filed, it must nevertheless undertake a limited 

review to determine whether the request demonstrates clear evidence of error.6 OWCP’s 

regulations and procedures provide that OWCP will reopen a claimant’s case for merit review, 

2 This section provides in pertinent part: “[t]he Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against payment of 

compensation at any time on [his] own motion or on application.” 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

3

20 C.F.R. § 10.607.

4

Id. at § 10.607(a). 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). 

5

Id.

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); T.C., Docket No. 19-1709 (issued June 5, 2020); Charles J. Prudencio, 41 ECAB 499, 

501-02 (1990).
4

notwithstanding the one-year filing limitation set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a), if the claimant’s 

request for reconsideration demonstrates clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP. 7

To demonstrate clear evidence of error, the evidence submitted must not only be of 

sufficient probative value to establish a clear procedural error, but must be of sufficient probative 

value to shift the weight of the evidence in favor of the claimant and raise a substan tial question 

as to the correctness of OWCP’s decision.8 The Board notes that clear evidence of error is intended 

to represent a difficult standard.9 Evidence that does not raise a substantial question concerning 

the correctness of OWCP’s decision is insufficient to demonstrate clear evidence of error.10 It is 

not enough merely to establish that the evidence could be construed so as to produce a contrary 

conclusion.11 This entails a limited review by OWCP of the evidence previously of record and 

whether the new evidence demonstrates clear error on the part of OWCP. 12 In this regard, the 

Board will limit its focus to a review of how the newly submitted evidence bears on the prior 

evidence of record.13 The Board makes an independent determination as to whether a claimant 

has demonstrated clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP.14

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant’s October 21, 2022 request 

for reconsideration was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

As noted above, OWCP’s regulations establish a one-year time limit for requesting 

reconsideration, which begins on the date of the most recent merit decision. Herein, the most 

recent merit decision was dated October 20, 2021. As OWCP received appellant’s request for 

reconsideration on October 21, 2022, more than one year after the October 20, 2021 decision, the 

Board finds that the request was untimely filed.15 Consequently, appellant must demonstrate clear 

evidence of error by OWCP in denying her claim for compensation.16

7

Id. at § 10.607(b); supra note 5 at Chapter 2.1602.5a (February 2016).

8 T.W., Docket No. 19-1821 (issued May 15, 2020).

9 R.K., Docket No. 19-1474 (issued March 3, 2020).

10 U.C., Docket No. 19-1753 (issued June 10, 2020).

11 T.C., supra note 7.

12 Id.

13 R.K., supra note 10.

14 Id.

15 D.B., Docket No. 19-0648 (issued October 21, 2020); R.T., Docket No. 20-0298 (issued August 6, 2020).

16 Id.
5

The Board further finds that appellant has not demonstrated clear evidence of error on the 

part of OWCP in its October 20, 2021 decision.

In support of appellant’s untimely request for reconsideration, appellant submitted posts 

from an online chat forum, as well as other employing establishment documents and letters.

The term clear evidence of error is intended to represent a difficult standard. 17 Appellant 

has not explained how the evidence submitted with her untimely request for reconsideration raised

a substantial question as to the correctness of OWCP’s October 20, 2021 merit decision.18 Thus, 

the Board finds that the evidence submitted on reconsideration does not demonstrate clear evidence 

of error on the part of OWCP in its October 20, 2021 decision.19

As appellant’s request for reconsideration was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate 

clear evidence of error, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration as it 

was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

17 Id.

18 See C.M., Docket No. 19-0666 (issued October 23, 2019). 

19 See W.R., Docket No. 18-1042 (issued February 12, 2019).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 19, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 27, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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