C.C. and U.S. Postal Service, Tampa Post Office (Board decision, March 14, 2025)

ECAB final decision. The Board affirmed OWCP's denial of an oral-hearing request as untimely. 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). FECA compensation decisions are generally not subject to court review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b).

Plain-English summary

A Tampa postal worker requested an oral hearing concerning an earlier compensation decision. The Board found the request was filed outside the statutory period. It upheld OWCP's refusal to grant the hearing.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
• Outcome: Oral-hearing request denied as untimely.
• Key point: The request missed the filing deadline for a hearing.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
C.C., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 25-0283
)
Issued: March 14, 2025
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, )
Tampa, FL, Employer
)
__________ )

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

DECISION AND ORDER

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

JURISDICTION

On January 3, 2025 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 12, 2024 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). As more than 180 days has elapsed from the last merit decision dated April 18, 2024, 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
The Board notes that following the December 12, 2024 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.
FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 16, 2024 appellant, then a 47-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 9, 2024 she sustained minor facial fractures, right eye vision loss, bruising on her face and arms, and lacerations on her cheeks, face, and eyebrows when she fainted and fell out of her postal vehicle. She alleged that the vehicle dragged her before crashing. Appellant stopped work on that date. On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment controverted the claim alleging willful misconduct.

In a February 16, 2024 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that no documentation accompanied her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to establish her claim and provided a factual questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 60 days to submit the necessary evidence.

In response OWCP received factual and medical evidence including a February 9, 2024 Florida Traffic Crash Report; an alcohol testing form; an unsigned and undated duty status report (Form CA-17); February 9, 2024 computerized tomography (CT) scans of the neck, cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spines, abdomen pelvis, and head; and February 9, 2024 x-ray interpretations of the chest and pelvis.

In a follow-up development letter dated March 13, 2024, OWCP requested that appellant complete the questionnaire enclosed with its February 16, 2024 letter and provide a narrative medical report. It noted that she was afforded 60 days from the February 16, 2024 letter to submit the necessary evidence.

Thereafter OWCP received a February 9, 2024 report from Dr. Anurag Tiwary, a Board- certified surgeon, who noted a diagnosis of multi-system trauma; a March 12, 2024 return to work/school excuse and referral orders of even date from Maria Romero-Flores, an advanced practice registered nurse; an April 6, 2024 return to work/school excuse from Sheri Mehl, an advanced practice registered nurse; and March 14, 2024 Form CA-17 and state workers’ compensation forms from Matthew Brice, a certified physician assistant.

By decision dated April 18, 2024, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the employment incident occurred on February 9, 2024, as alleged. It therefore concluded that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

On December 3, 2024 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review via the Employees’ Compensation & Operations Management Portal (ECOMP).

By decision dated December 12, 2024 OWCP determined that appellant was not entitled to an oral hearing as a matter of right because her request was not made within 30 days of issuance of the April 18, 2024 decision. It advised that it had exercised its discretion, but further found that the case could equally well be addressed by requesting reconsideration and submitting new evidence.

2
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 an oral 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, or the date received in ECOMP, and before the claimant has requested reconsideration.4 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).

OWCP’s regulations provide that the request for a hearing or review of the written record must be made within 30 days of the date of the decision for which a review is sought. 6 Because appellant’s request for an oral hearing was received in ECOMP on December 3, 2024, more than 30 days after OWCP’s April 18, 2024 decision, it was untimely filed. She was, therefore, not entitled to an oral hearing as a matter of right.7

OWCP, however, has the discretionary authority to grant the request and it must exercise such discretion.8 The Board finds that, in the December 12, 2024 decision, OWCP properly exercised its discretion by determining that the issue in the case could be equally well addressed through a request for reconsideration, along with the submission of additional evidence.

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 deductions

3
20 C.F.R. §§ 10.616, 10.617.
4
Id. at § 10.616(a); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Hearings and Reviews of the Written Record, Chapter 2.1601.4a (February 2024). 5 See C.C., Docket No.25-0053 (issued December 12, 2024); P.G., Docket No. 24-0447 (issued August 12, 2024); W.H., Docket No. 20-0562 (issued August 6, 2020); Eddie Franklin, 51 ECAB 223 (1999); Delmont L. Thompson, 51 ECAB 155 (1999). 6 Supra note 3.
7
See G.M., Docket No. 24-0878 (issued November 8, 2024); K.B., Docket No. 21-1038 (issued February 28, 2022); M.F., Docket No. 21-0878 (issued January 6, 2022); see also P.C., Docket No. 19-1003 (issued December 4, 2019). 8 Id.

3 from established facts.9 The Board finds that the evidence of record does not indicate that OWCP abused its discretion in connection with its denial of appellant’s request for an oral hearing.

Accordingly, 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).

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).

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 12, 2024 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 14, 2025
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

9
Id.; see also Daniel J. Perea, 42 ECAB 214, 221 (1990).

4