United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION FACILITY, Huntsville, AL, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0142

Issued: October 23, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 23, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 15, 2021 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from the last merit decision dated March 18, 2019 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 the case.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s October 20, 2020 request for 

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 26, 2019 appellant, then a 68-year-old mail handler, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) due 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the January 15, 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

to factors of his federal employment. He indicated that his job duties for the past 31 plus years

involved repetitive use of his hands and wrists to perform mail handling tasks and to lift items 

weighing up to 70 pounds. Appellant noted that he first became aware of his condition on April 1, 

2018 and realized its relation to his federal employment on April 10, 2018. He did not stop work.

In a February 15, 2019 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that it had not 

received any evidence in support of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical 

evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for his completion. In a separate letter of even date, 

OWCP notified the employing establishment of appellant’s traumatic injury claim and requested 

additional information from a knowledgeable supervisor. It afforded both parties 30 days to submit 

the necessary evidence. No response was received.

By decision dated March 18, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

evidence submitted was insufficient to establish an injury in the performance of duty, as alleged. 

It noted that, as he did not respond to its development questionnaire or submit any evidence in 

support of his claim, it was unable to determine the factual component of his claim. Therefore, 

OWCP concluded that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by 

FECA. 

OWCP thereafter received a narrative report dated May 6, 2019 by Dr. Philip A. Maddox, 

a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who indicated that appellant was last seen on January 7, 

2019 for complaints of bilateral hand numbness and reduced grip strength. On physical 

examination, Dr. Maddox noted a positive Durkan’s test and a positive Tinel’s sign, which he 

opined that were consistent with CTS. He recommended that appellant undergo electromyography 

and nerve conduction velocity studies, and noted that appellant may require surgery. Dr. Maddox 

opined that there was no conclusive evidence that CTS was caused by or related to any work

activity. 

On October 20, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration. In support of his request, he 

submitted a statement dated October 19, 2020 which stated that his job duties included lifting 

heavy sacks, flat tubs, trays of letters, packages, and parcels; repetitive pushing and pulling 

containers of mail, and operating industrial power equipment with a heavy tow bar. Appellant 

related that he believed that these duties caused bilateral CTS, and that he had no other outside 

hobbies or employment which could have contributed to his condition. 

In further support of his request, appellant submitted an October 14, 2020 note by

Dr. Jonathan A. Ludwig, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed bilateral CTS and 

bilateral cubital tunnel syndrome and recommended carpal tunnel release and ulnar nerve 

transposition surgery on the left upper extremity. 

By decision dated January 15, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration, 

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

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 

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).
3

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 Its 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 

To demonstrate clear evidence of error, a claimant must submit evidence relevant to the 

issue which was decided by OWCP.9 The evidence must be positive, precise, and explicit and 

must manifest on its face that OWCP committed an error. Evidence which does not raise a 

substantial question concerning the correctness of OWCP’s decision is insufficient to demonstrate 

clear evidence of error. It is not enough merely to show that the evidence could be construed so 

as to produce a contrary conclusion. This entails a limited review by OWCP of how the evidence 

submitted with the reconsideration request bears on the evidence previously of record and whether 

the new evidence demonstrates clear error on the part of OWCP. 

OWCP’s procedures note that the term clear evidence of error is intended to represent a 

difficult standard.10 The claimant must present evidence which on its face demonstrates that 

OWCP made an error (for example, proof that a schedule award was miscalculated). Evidence 

such as a detailed, well-rationalized medical report which, if submitted before the denial was 

issued, would have created a conflict in medical opinion requiring further development, is not clear 

evidence of error.11 The Board makes an independent determination of whether a claimant has 

demonstrated clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP. 12

ANALYSIS

The Board finds thatOWCP properly determined that appellant’s October 20, 2020 request 

for reconsideration was untimely filed. 

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).

5 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4(b) (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); supra note 5 at Chapter 2.1602.5 (February 2016).

9

S.C., Docket No. 18-0126 (issued May 14, 2016); supra note 5 at Chapter 2.1602.5(a) (February 2016).

10 G.G., supra note 6; see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); supra note 5 at Chapter 2.1602.5 (February 2016).

11 J.S., Docket No. 16-1240 (issued December 1, 2016); id. at Chapter 2.1602.5(a) (February 2016).

12 D.S., Docket No. 17-0407 (issued May 24, 2017).
4

A request for reconsideration must be received within one year of the date of OWCP’s 

decision for which review is sought.13 As appellant’s request for reconsideration was not received 

until October 20, 2020, more than one year after the issuance of OWCP’s March 18, 2019 merit 

decision, it was untimely filed. Consequently, he must demonstrate clear evidence of error by 

OWCP in denying the claim.14

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

part of OWCP in its March 18, 2019 decision. The underlying issue is whether he met his burden 

of proof to establish an injury in the performance of duty, as alleged. 

In support of his untimely request for reconsideration, appellant submitted a statement

dated October 19, 2020, which contained additional details regarding his job duties. However, he 

did not explain how his statement raised a substantial question as to the correctness of OWCP’s 

decision.15 OWCP also received medical evidence including a May 6, 2019 narrative report by

Dr. Maddox, and an October 14, 2020 note by Dr. Ludwig. As previously noted, clear evidence 

of error is intended to represent a difficult standard.16 The argument and evidence submitted by 

appellant in support of his untimely request for reconsideration does not raise a substantial question 

as to the correctness of the denial of his claim.17 Thus, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate 

clear evidence of error.18 

Accordingly, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s reconsideration 

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

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the 

merits of his claim, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of 

error.

13 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).

14 Id. at. § 10.607(b); see R.T., Docket No. 19-0604 (issued September 13, 2019); see Debra McDavid, 57 ECAB 

149 (2005).

15 See G.B., Docket No. 18-1629 (issued April15, 2019); P.B., Docket No. 18-0265 (issued September 5, 2018); 

D.E., 59 ECAB 438 (2008).

16 Supra note 12.

17 See P.T., Docket No. 18-0494 (issued July 9, 2018).

18 J.C., Docket No. 20-1250 (issued May 24, 2021); W.D., Docket No. 19-0062 (issued April 15, 2019).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 15, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 23, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board