United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Seattle, WA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0693

Issued: March 2, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 31, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 20, 2022 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 30, 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 determined that appellant abandoned his request for 

an oral hearing.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the January20, 2022 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP 

and on appeal to the Board. 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 16, 2021 appellant, then a 34-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim

(Form CA-1) alleging that on February 16, 2021 he sustained a left wrist injury when he slipped 

on ice and landed on his left wrist while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on 

June 8, 2021.

Appellant submitted a report, memorializing a June 5, 2021 clinic visit, which contained 

an illegible signature. The report contained recommended work restrictions.

In a July 27, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of his 

claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and provided a 

questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence.

Appellant submitted a March 19, 2021 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) from 

Douglas Stroop, a physician assistant, who referenced a February 16, 2021 fall at work and 

diagnosed wrist sprain. 

In an August 12, 2021 narrative report, Dr. Andrew Barker, a Board-certified physiatrist 

and osteopath, diagnosed left wrist strain and indicated that appellant was not working. In a duty 

status report (Form CA-17) of even date, he diagnosed left wrist sprain and recommended work 

restrictions. 

Appellant also submitted a portion of an unsigned report that contained a diagnosis of left 

wrist sprain.

By decision dated August 30, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

factual evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the employment incident occurred as 

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

defined by FECA.

On September 29, 2021 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. He submitted additional evidence, including June 29 

and July 15, 2021 CA-17 forms and work capacity reports from Dr. Barker, as well as copies of 

previously-submitted medical reports. In a February 16, 2021 statement, appellant described the 

February 16, 2021 fall. He also submitted an October 3, 2021 statement from a coworker who 

recounted events occurring after the claimed February 16, 2021 fall. 

In a November 15, 2021 notice, OWCP’s hearing representative informed appellant that a 

telephonic hearing was scheduled for January 4, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). 

The notice included a toll-free number to call, provided the appropriate passcode, and described 

procedures for requesting postponement of the hearing. The hearing representative mailed the 

notice to appellant’s last known address of record. Appellant did not appear for the hearing or 

request postponement.

By decision dated January 20, 2022, OWCP determined that appellant had abandoned his 

request for an oral hearing as he had received written notification of the hearing 30 days in advance 

butfailed to appear. It further noted that there was no indication in the record that he had contacted 
3

the Branch of Hearings and Review either prior to, or subsequent to, the scheduled hearing to 

explain his failure to appear.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Under FECA and its implementing regulations, a claimant who has received a final adverse 

decision by OWCP may obtain a hearing by writing to the address specified in the decision within 

30 days of the date of the decision for which a hearing is sought. 3 Unless otherwise directed in 

writing by the claimant, OWCP’s hearing representative will mail a notice of the time and place 

of the hearing to the claimant and any representative at least 30 days before the scheduled date. 4 

OWCP has the burden of proving that it properly mailed notice of the scheduled hearing to a 

claimant and any representative of record.5

A claimant who fails to appear at a scheduled hearing may request in writing, within 10 

days after the date set for the hearing, that another hearing be scheduled. Where good cause for 

failure to appear is shown, another hearing will be scheduled and conducted by teleconference. 

The failure of the claimant to request another hearing within 10 days, or the failure of the claimant 

to appear at the second scheduled hearing without good cause shown, shall constitute abandonment 

of the request for a hearing.6

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned his request for 

an oral hearing.

Following OWCP’s August 30, 2021 decision, appellant filed a timely request for an oral 

hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. In a November 15, 

2021 notice, OWCP’s hearing representative notified him that it had scheduled a telephonic 

hearing for January 4, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. EST. The hearing representative properly mailed the 

hearing notice to appellant’s last known address of record7 and provided instructions on how to 

participate. The Board has held that absent evidence to the contrary, a letter properly addressed 

and mailed in the ordinary course of business is presumed to have been received . This is called 

the mailbox rule.8 As of the date of the decision on appeal, there was no evidence of nondelivery 

of the hearing notice. Appellant failed to appear for the scheduled hearing and he did not request 

a postponement or provide an explanation to OWCP for his failure to appear within 10 days of the 

3

20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a). 

4

Id. at § 10.617(b). 

5 T.R., Docket No. 19-1952 (issued April24, 2020); M.R., Docket No. 18-1643 (issued March 1, 2019); T.P., 

Docket No. 15-0806 (issued September 11, 2015); Michelle R. Littlejohn, 42 ECAB 463 (1991).

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.622(f); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Hearings and Review of the Written 

Record, Chapter 2.1601.6g (September 2020); A.J., Docket No. 18-0830 (issued January 10, 2019); L.B., Docket No. 

18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018).

7 E.S., Docket No. 19-0567 (issued August 5, 2019).

8 L.L., Docket No. 21-1194 (issued March 18, 2022); V.C.,Docket No. 20-0798 (issued November 16, 2020); L.T., 

Docket No. 20-1539 (issued August2, 2021).
4

scheduled hearing.9 The Board thus finds that OWCP properly determined that he abandoned his 

request for an oral hearing.10

On appeal, appellant contends that he did not receive the notice of hearing. However, as 

explained above, as of the date of the decision on appeal, there was no evidence of nondelivery. 

As appellant neither appeared for, nor requested a postponement of the scheduled hearing, OWCP, 

in its January 20, 2022 decision, properly determined that he abandoned his hearing request.11

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned his request for 

an oral hearing.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 20, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 2, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

9

See A.J., supra note 6.

10 See E.S., supra note 7.

11 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).