United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.N., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Oklahoma City, OK, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1048

Issued: April 3, 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 July 6, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 10, 2022 nonmerit decision of 

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

OWCP’s last merit decision, dated June 24, 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 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 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). The 180th day following OWCP’s June 24, 2021 decision was December 21, 2021. As this appeal was 

filed on July 6, 2022, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review the June 24, 2021 merit decision. See P.H., Docket No. 

19-1354 (issued March 13, 2020); E.H., Docket No. 19-0859 (issued December 10, 2019).
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 14, 2006 appellant, then a 42-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she injured her right shoulder while in the performance of 

duty. On November 6, 2008 OWCP accepted the claim for sprain of shoulder and upper arm, 

unspecified site, left, resolved. On July 23, 2009 it accepted the claim for sprain of shoulder and 

upper arm, unspecified site, right, resolved.

By letter dated March 8, 2021, appellant requested expansion of the acceptance of her 

claim based upon a February 24, 2021 report from Dr. John W. Ellis, a Board-certified family 

practitioner.

By decision dated June 24, 2021, OWCP denied expansion of the claim. 

On September 13, 2021 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review regarding the June 24, 2021 decision. 

By decision dated October 8, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing, 

finding that it was untimely filed as it was not made within 30 days of OWCP’s June 24, 2021 

decision. It, therefore, concluded that she was not entitled to a hearing as a matter of right. OWCP 

further exercised discretion and determined that the issue in this case could be equally-well 

addressed through a request for reconsideration along with the submission of new evidence to 

establish expansion of appellant’s claim.

On May 24, 2022 appellant again requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review regarding the June 24, 2021 decision. 

By decision dated June 10, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing as 

untimely filed as it was not made within 30 days of its June 24, 2021 decision. It, therefore,

concluded that she was not entitled to a hearing as a matter of right. OWCP further exercised 

discretion and determined that the issue in this case could be equally-well addressed through a 

request for reconsideration along with the submission of new evidence to establish expansion of 

the claim. It noted that appellant had previously requested a hearing regarding the June 24, 2021 

decision and that the prior request was denied. 

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. 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.

3

 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.4 

3 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.616, 10.617, and 10.618.

4

Id. at § 10.616(a).
3

Although there is no right to a review of the written record or an oral hearing, if not requested 

within the 30-day time period, OWCP may within its discretionary powers grant or deny 

appellant’s request and must exercise its discretion.5

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).

On May 24, 2022 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review;

6 however, this request was made more than 30 days after 

OWCP’s June 24, 2021 decision. Section 8124(b)(1) is unequivocal on the time limitation for 

filing a request for a hearing.7 As such, the request was untimely filed and appellant was not 

entitled to an oral hearing as a matter of right.

The Board further finds that OWCP in its June 10, 2022 decision, properly exercised its 

discretionary authority, as his expansion claim could be equally-well addressed through a 

reconsideration request.

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

from established facts.8 The Board finds that the evidence of record does not establish that OWCP 

abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request for an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative.9

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).

5 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 August 12, 2019); Eddie Franklin, 51 ECAB 223 (1999); Delmont L. Thompson, 51 ECAB 

155 (1999).

6 Under OWCP’s regulations and procedures, the timeliness of a request for a hearing is determined on the basis of 

the postmark of the envelope containing the request, if available. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, 

Hearings and Reviews of the Written Record, Chapter 2.1601.4a (October 2011). Otherwise, the date of the letter 

itself should be used. See J.H., Docket No. 06-1565 (issued February 20, 2007); James B. Moses, 52 ECAB 465 

(2001), citing William J. Kapfhammer, 42 ECAB 271 (1990); see also Douglas McLean, 42 ECAB 759 (1991).

7 See M.M., Docket No. 19-1171 (issued October 22, 2019); William F. Osborne, 46 ECAB 198 (1994).

8 T.G., Docket No. 19-0904 (issued November 25, 2019); see Daniel J. Perea, 42 ECAB 214, 221 (1990).

9

J.G., Docket No. 19-0555 (issued March 14, 2019).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 10, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 3, 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