United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, NORTH TEXAS 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Coppell, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0186

Issued: March 7, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 16, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 1, 2021 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated August 5, 2020, 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

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that,following the November 1, 2021 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s October 25, 2021 request for 

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 10, 2018 appellant, then a 54-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 4, 2018 he sustained injuries to his back, neck and 

right leg when he was struck by an over the road (OTR) container in the performance of duty. 

OWCP accepted the claim for sprains of cervical and lumbar spine ligaments, and contusions of 

the right hip and right shoulder. It paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental 

rolls from January 19 through May 24, 2019.

On October 24, 2019 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for the period 

May 24 through October 12, 2019. Medical evidence received with the claim included reports 

documenting appellant’s lumbar epidural steroid injections. 

In a development letter dated November 4, 2019, OWCP advised appellant that the medical 

evidence received was insufficient to support his claim for wage-loss compensation during the 

period claimed. It noted the type of medical evidence needed to support his claim and afforded 

him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

OWCP thereafter received additional medical evidence. 

By decision dated December 20, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability from 

work for the period May 24 through October 12, 2019 as the medical evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish disability from work due to the accepted December 4, 2018 employment 

injury.

Appellant continued to submit medical evidence in support of his wage-loss compensation 

claim.

On June 16, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s December 20, 2019

decision. 

By decision dated August 5, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its December 20, 2019 

disability decision. 

Appellant continued to submit medical evidence in support of his wage-loss compensation 

claim. 

On October 25, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s August 5, 2020

wage-loss compensation decision.

By decision dated November 1, 2021, OWCP summarily denied appellant’s request for 

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

It simply noted: “You did not present clear evidence of error.... The basis for this decision is.”
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

merit review.3 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.4 Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date (i.e., 

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

5

 

Imposition of this one-year filing limitation does not constitute an abuse of discretion.6

When a request for reconsideration is untimely, OWCP undertakes a limited review to 

determine whether the request demonstrates clear evidence that OWCP’s most recent merit 

decision was in error.7 OWCP’s procedures provide that it will reopen a claimant’s case for merit 

review, notwithstanding the one-year filing limitation set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 10.607, if the 

claimant’s request for reconsideration demonstrates “clear evidence of error” on the part of 

OWCP.8 In this regard, OWCP will limit its focus to a review of how the newly submitted 

evidence bears on the prior evidence of record.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant’s request for 

reconsideration was untimely filed. 

OWCP’s regulations10 and procedures11 establish a one-year time limit for requesting 

reconsideration, which begins on the date of the last merit decision issued in the case. A right to 

reconsideration within one year also accompanies any subsequent merit decision on the issue(s). 12 

The most recent merit decision addressing appellant’s occupational disease claim was OWCP’s 

August 5, 2020 decision. As his request for reconsideration was not received by OWCP until 

3

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); L.W., Docket No. 18-1475 (issued February 7, 2019); Y.S.,Docket No. 08-0440 (issued 

March 16, 2009).

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).

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

6 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).

7

See 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); M.H., Docket No. 18-0623 (issued October 4, 2018); Charles J. Prudencio, 41 ECAB 

499 (1990).

8 L.C., Docket No. 18-1407 (issued February 14, 2019); M.L., Docket No. 09-0956 (issued April15, 2010). See 

also 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b);supranote 5 at Chapter 2.1602.5 (September 2020).

9

J.M., Docket No. 19-1842 (issued April23, 2020); Robert G. Burns, 57 ECAB 657 (2006).

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a); see J.W., Docket No. 18-0703 (issued November 14, 2018); Alberta Dukes, 56 ECAB 

247 (2005).

11 Supra note 5 at Chapter 2.1602.4 (September 2020).

12 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b).
4

October 25, 2021, more than one year after the August 5, 2020 decision, the Board finds that it 

was untimely filed. Consequently, appellant must demonstrate clear evidence of error.

The Board further finds that OWCP summarily denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration without complying with the review requirements of FECA and its implementing 

regulations.13 The November 1, 2021 decision simply noted: “You did not present clear evidence 

of error.... The basis for this decision is.” As noted, section 8124(a) of FECA provides that 

OWCP shall determine and make a finding of fact and make an award for or against payment of 

compensation.14 Its regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 provide that the decision of the Director of 

OWCP shall contain findings and facts and a statement of reasons. 15 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. 16 

However, OWCP did not consider and address any of the medical reports received since the 

August 5, 2020 decision and did not make findings explaining the basis of its decision.

17

The case must, therefore, be remanded for findings of fact and a statement of reasons, to 

be followed by an appropriate decision on appellant’s untimely reconsideration request.

CONCLUSION

The Board findsthat appellant’s request for reconsideration was untimely filed. The Board 

further finds that the case is not in posture for decision with regard to whether the request for 

reconsideration failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

13 See M.G., Docket No. 21-0893 (issued December 27, 2021); Order Remanding Case, W.D., Docket No. 20-0859 

(issued November 20, 2020); Order Remanding Case, C.G., Docket No. 20-0051 (issued June 29, 2020); Order 

Remanding Case, T.P., Docket No. 19-1533 (issued April30, 2020); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b).

14 5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).

15 20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

16 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, 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).

17 R.C., Docket No. 21-0466 (issued February 16, 2022).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 1, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’Compensation Programs is affirmed in part and set aside in part and the case is remanded 

for further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: March 7, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board