T.H. and Department of Veterans Affairs, Michael E. DeBakey Medical Center, Houston, TX (Board decision, January 9, 2024)

T.H. and Michael E. DeBakey Medical Center (ECAB 23-1143): Suitable-work letter not appealable

Decision type
Board decision
Docket
23-1143
Decided
January 9, 2024
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Board precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-19

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Board precedent from 2024, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official ECAB release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (dol.gov)

ECAB final decision. The Board dismissed the appeal because OWCP's August 24, 2023 letter about a suitable-work offer was not a final adverse decision. The Board did not decide whether the job offer was suitable. 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

A VA medical center employee appealed an OWCP letter saying she had not given a valid reason to refuse a suitable-work offer and allowing her 15 more days to accept it. The Board found the letter was an intermediate notice, not a final adverse decision it could review. It dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without ruling on the job offer.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: ECAB jurisdiction over final adverse OWCP decisions, 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(a).
  • Outcome: Appeal No. 23-1143 dismissed.
  • Key point: A letter giving additional time to accept a job offer did not itself create a Board appeal.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
T.H., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 23-1143
)
Issued: January 9, 2024
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
)
MICHAEL E. DEBAKEY MEDICAL CENTER, )
Houston, TX, Employer
)
__________ )

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

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On September 5, 2023 appellant sought an appeal from a purported August 24, 2023 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 23-1143.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act. 1 This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date appellant filed her appeal. 2 The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final adverse decision of OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current appeal over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction. The record contains an August 24, 2023 OWCP letter advising appellant that she had not provided a valid reason for refusing a suitable work offer and that she had 15 additional days to accept the position. This was not a final decision. As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly exercise

1
5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).
2
20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as Docket No. 23 -1143 must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as Docket No. 23-1143 is dismissed.

Issued: January 9, 2024
Washington, DC

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

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

3
The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id. at § 501.6(d).

2

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace