H.G. and Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Maquoketa, IA (Board decision, December 29, 2015)

ECAB remand decision. The Board set aside OWCP’s March 23, 2015 reconsideration decision and directed OWCP to issue an appropriate decision. Whether the claim should be reopened remains unresolved. A party may petition the Board for reconsideration within 30 days of issuance unless this order specifies another period, under 20 C.F.R. § 501.7(a).

Plain-English summary

H.G. appealed OWCP’s refusal to reconsider a compensation claim. The Board found that a communications specialist had signed OWCP’s decision denying his request as untimely and lacking clear evidence of error. OWCP’s procedures assigned authority for that type of decision to claims staff, including a senior claims examiner, rather than a communications specialist. The Board set aside the inadequate decision and returned the case to OWCP for a properly issued decision. It did not decide the underlying compensation claim or whether reconsideration should be granted.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 20 C.F.R. § 10.125(b).
• Outcome: March 23, 2015 OWCP decision set aside; case remanded.
• Key point: A communications specialist lacked authority under OWCP procedures to sign the reconsideration denial.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
H.G., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 15-1413
) Issued: December 29, 2015
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
)
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION
)
SERVICE, Maquoketa, IA, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On June 16, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 23, 2015 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Board docketed the appeal as No. 15-1413.

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that the case is not in posture for a decision and must be remanded to OWCP. In its March 23, 2015 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration as untimely filed and lacking clear evidence of error. The decision was issued under the name of Marla Spriggs, who is identified as a “[c]ommunications [s]pecialist.”

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.125(b), “OWCP claims staff apply the law, the regulations, and its procedures to the facts as reported or obtained upon investigation” with regard to the entitlement to benefits. OWCP procedures do not designate signature authority to communications specialists but rather to claims examiners, senior claims examiners, and district directors.1 OWCP’s procedures contemplate that a senior claims examiner should deny untimely

1
See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400 Exhibit 1 (February 2013). applications for reconsideration which do not present clear evidence of error.2 As Ms. Spriggs is not a senior claims examiner or other OWCP official with signature authority, she cannot be considered “claims staff.” Consequently, OWCP has issued an inadequate decision with respect to the requirements of its regulations and procedures. For this reason, the case will be remanded to OWCP to issue an appropriate decision. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 23, 2015 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further action consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: December 29, 2015
Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

2
See id. at 2.1602.2(b); 2.1602.5(b) (October 2011). Section 2.1602.5(b) also states that the decision shall include a brief evaluation of the evidence submitted. The Board notes that OWCP’s decision did not evaluate any of the evidence submitted by appellant in finding that clear evidence of error was not established.

2