A.M. and U.S. Postal Service, Sayre Post Office (Board decision, May 6, 2025)

ECAB final decision. The Board affirmed OWCP's denial of merits reconsideration as untimely and lacking clear evidence of error. 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 postal worker requested reconsideration of an earlier disability decision years after the one-year filing period. The Board found the request was late and did not demonstrate clear evidence that OWCP had erred. It upheld OWCP's refusal to reopen the merits of the claim.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
• Outcome: Late reconsideration request denied.
• Key point: A late OWCP reconsideration request needed clear evidence of error to obtain review.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
A.M., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 25-0395
)
Issued: May 6, 2025
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SAYRE POST
)
OFFICE, Sayre, OK, Employer
)
__________ )

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

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 17, 2025 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 3, 2025 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). As more than 180 days elapsed from OWCP’s last merit decision on the disability issue, dated June 7, 2016, 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 reconsideration of the merits of her claim, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

1
5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2
The Board notes that, following the March 3, 2025 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP.
However, the Board’s Rules of Procedures 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 October 17, 2014 appellant, then a 37-year-old sales, services, and distribution associate, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she injured her right knee on that date when she fell to the floor while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on October 18, 2014. OWCP accepted the claim for contusions of the hands and knees and right knee sprain.

Beginning on December 3, 2014 appellant filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7) requesting wage-loss compensation for disability from work commencing December 2, 2014.

On December 8, 2014 Dr. James Bond, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed status post fall with bilateral patellofemoral pain. He found that appellant was temporarily totally disabled. Commencing on January 7, 2015 Dr. Bond completed duty status reports (Form CA-17) diagnosing a variety of conditions including right knee sprain, chondromalacia patella, contusion of the right knee, meniscus tear, and unspecified tear. He opined that appellant was totally disabled.

By decision dated April 7, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss compensation for disability for the period December 2, 2014 through April 30, 2015, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish disability from work due to the October 17, 2014 employment injury.

OWCP continued to receive medical evidence. On March 18, 2014 Dr. Bond examined appellant due to bilateral hand pain. He continued to opine that she was totally disabled.

By decision dated June 29, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss compensation for the period commencing May 1, 2015 finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish disability from work for th at period.

OWCP continued to receive medical evidence. In reports dated July 15 through January 13, 2016, Dr. Bond diagnosed possible superficial radial nerve neuritis or autoimmune inflammation flare, right knee chondromalacia, and left knee bone bruise.

In a September 21, 2015 form report, Dr. John W. Ellis, an osteopath Board-certified in family practice, found that appellant could not return to her date-of-injury position, but could work with restrictions. He also completed a narrative report of even date and indicated that she could work with restrictions. In form reports dated October 14 through February 10, 2016, Dr. Ellis found that appellant was totally disabled.

On February 17, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s April 7, 2015 decision.

OWCP continued to receive evidence. Through form reports dated March 17 through May 12, 2016 Dr. Ellis found that appellant was totally disabled. On March 30, 2016 Dr. Bond examined appellant due to bilateral knee pain secondary to chondromalacia.

OWCP expanded the acceptance of appellant’s claim to include lumbar sprain and left knee sprain.

2
By decision dated June 7, 2016, OWCP denied modification of its April 7, 2015 decision.

OWCP continued to receive evidence. In form reports dated June 14, 2016 through March 2, 2017, Dr. Ellis found that appellant was totally disabled.

On December 12, 2016 appellant was separated from employment on December 5, 2016 due to inability to meet the requirements of the position.

In a March 2, 2017 narrative report, Dr. Ellis described appellant’s history of injury on October 17, 2014 and her medical treatment. He performed a physical examination and diagnosed bilateral hand and knee contusions, bilateral knee sprains, lumbar sprain, bilateral wrist sprains, and bilateral hand tendinitis. Dr. Ellis opined that appellant was totally disabled as a result of her work-related injuries since April 21, 2016. He continued to provide form reports and support her total disability from work April 17, 2017 through January 23, 2018. In a report dated January 23, 2018, Dr. Ellis repeated findings and conclusions of March 2, 2017. On May 16 and September 26, 2018 he included additional diagnoses of bilateral knee chondromalacia and bilateral knee partial ligament tears, and bilateral wrist sprains. Dr. Ellis submitted a series of form reports finding that appellant was totally disabled for the period February 27 through May 16, 2018. He completed additional narrative reports May 16, 2018 through December 15, 2021 including the additional condition of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and attributing all additional conditions, impairments, and disabilities to the accepted employment injury. Dr. Ellis found that appellant had been temporarily totally disabled as a result of her work injuries since April 21, 2016. He continued to submit a series of form reports finding that appellant was totally disabled commencing July 18, 2018.

In notes dated July 18 through October 13, 2021, Dr. Bond examined appellant due to bilateral knee pain and diagnosed chondromalacia and degenerative joint disease of the knees. He included the additional diagnosis of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome commencing August 4, 2021. Commencing November 22, 2021, Dr. Bond found that appellant could return to modified-duty work.

In reports dated December 22, 2001 through March 16, 2022, Dr. Bond related that appellant had undergone right knee surgery and was anticipating left knee surgery.

In a report dated June 29, 2022, Dr. Ellis listed the additional conditions causally related to the October 17, 2014 employment injury as bilateral wrist sprains, bilateral hand tendinitis, bilateral knee chondromalacia patella, bilateral tears of the ligaments of the knees, bilateral knee sprains, right knee bursitis, bilateral knee Hoffa’s fat pad impingement, and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome of the wrist. He provided biomechanical explanations of how the accepted incident caused the additional diagnosed conditions and opined that appellant had been totally disabled since April 21, 2016. Dr. Ellis provided an accompanying form report of even date finding that she was totally disabled. He continued to find that she was totally disabled through February 1, 2023.

By decision dated February 1, 2023, OWCP denied expansion of the acceptance of appellant’s claim to include the additional conditions of bilateral wrist sprains, bilateral hand tendinitis, bilateral knee chondromalacia patella, bilateral tears of the ligaments of the knees, bilateral knee sprains, right knee bursitis, bilateral knee Hoffa ’s fat pad impingement, and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome of the wrist.

3
In a report dated April 19, 2023, Dr. Ellis listed the additional conditions causally related to the October 17, 2014 employment injury as bilateral wrist sprains, bilateral hand tendinitis, bilateral knee chondromalacia patella, bilateral tears of the ligaments of the knees, bilateral knee sprains, right knee bursitis, bilateral knee Hoffa’s fat pad impingement, and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome of the wrist. He provided biomechanical explanations of how the accepted incident caused the additional diagnosed conditions and opined that appellant had been totally disabled since April 21, 2016.

On July 10, 2023 appellant requested reconsideration.

On August 8, 2023 appellant again requested reconsideration of the February 1, 2023 and April 7, 2015 OWCP decisions.

OWCP continued to receive evidence. Dr. Ellis completed an August 16, 2023 form report finding that appellant was totally disabled.

By decision dated October 18, 2023, OWCP vacated the February 1, 2023 expansion decision.

On October 18, 2023 OWCP expanded the acceptance of the claim to include bilateral calcific tendinitis of the hands, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and bilateral chondromalacia patellae.

OWCP continued to receive evidence. In an October 25, 2023 form report, Dr. Ellis found that appellant was totally disabled from work.

In a January 16, 2024 report, Dr. Ellis noted that appellant was unable to perform the duties of her date-of-injury position and had not been provided with a modified-duty position by the employing establishment. He found that appellant was totally disabled due to her accepted knee and wrist conditions.

On March 15, 2024 Dr. Ryan L. Nelson, an osteopath and Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, opined that appellant could perform light-duty work following her November 14, 2023 left carpal tunnel release. Appellant underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies of the bilateral knees.

In reports dated April 19, 30 and May 10, 2024, Dr. Keley John Booth, a Board-certified anesthesiologist, provided treatment for appellant’s pain due to her accepted conditions of bilateral knee sprains and contusion, lumbar sprain, bilateral calcific tendinitis of the hands, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and bilateral chondromalacia patellae .

In form reports dated March 25 through January 14, 2025, Dr. Ellis found that appellant was totally disabled from work.

On August 6, 2024 Dr. Derek L. West, an osteopath, examined appellant due to right knee pain which he attributed to her 2014 employment injury. He diagnosed chronic pain of the right knee and chondromalacia of the right knee. Dr. West recommended surgery. He also completed a work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c) of even date finding that appellant was totally disabled from work.

4
On February 17, 2025 appellant requested reconsideration of the denial of disability. She contended that sufficient medical evidence had been submitted, which was not previously considered.

By decision dated March 3, 2025, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Pursuant to section 8128(a) of FECA, OWCP has the discretion to reopen a case for further merit review. 3 This discretionary authority, however, is subject to certain restrictions. For instance, a request for reconsideration must be received within one year of the date of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought. 4 Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date, i.e., the “received date” in OWCP’s Integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS).5 Imposition of this one-year filing limitation does not constitute an abuse of discretion.6

OWCP may not deny a reconsideration request solely because it was untimely filed.
When a claimant’s request for reconsideration is untimely filed, it must nevertheless undertake a limited review to determine whether it demonstrates clear evidence of error. 7 If a request demonstrates clear evidence of error, OWCP will reopen the case for merit review. 8

To demonstrate clear evidence of error, a claimant must submit evidence relevant to the issue, which was decided by OWCP. The evidence must be positive, precise, and explicit and must manifest on its face that OWCP committed an error. Evidence that does not raise a substantial question concerning the correctness of OWCP’s decision is insufficient to demonstrate clear evidence of error. It is not enough to merely show that the evidence could be construed so as to produce a contrary conclusion. This entails a limited review by OWCP of how the evidence submitted with the reconsideration request bears on the evidence previously of record and whether the new evidence demonstrates clear error on the part of OWCP. 9

3
5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); L.W., Docket No. 18-1475 (issued February 7, 2019); Y.S., Docket No. 08-0440 (issued March 16, 2009). 4 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).
5
Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4b (September 2020).
6
R.L., Docket No. 18-0496 (issued January 9, 2019); E.R., Docket No. 09-0599 (issued June 3, 2009); Leon D. Faidley, Jr., 41 ECAB 104 (1989). 7 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); G.G., Docket No. 18-1074 (issued January 7, 2019); Charles J. Prudencio, 41 ECAB 499, 501-02 (1990). 8 U.C., Docket No. 19-1753 (issued June 10, 2020); M.L., Docket No. 09-0956 (issued April 15, 2010). See also id. at § 10.607(b); supra note 5 at Chapter 2.1602.5 (September 2020). 9 J.W., Docket No. 18-0703 (issued November 14, 2018); Robert G. Burns, 57 ECAB 657 (2006).

5
OWCP’s procedures note that the term clear evidence of error is intended to represent a difficult standard and the claimant must present evidence, which on its face shows that OWCP made an error. 10 Evidence such as a detailed, well-rationalized medical report, which, if submitted before the denial was issued, would have created a conflict in medical opinion requiring further development, is not clear evidence of error. 11 The Board makes an independent determination of whether a claimant has demonstrated clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP.12

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

OWCP’s regulations13 and procedures14 establish a one-year time limit for requesting reconsideration, which begins on the date of the last merit decision issued in the case. A right to reconsideration within one year also accompanies any subsequent merit decision on the issues. 15 The most recent merit decision on the disability issue was OWCP’s June 7, 2016 decision. As OWCP did not receive her request for reconsideration until February 17, 2025, more than one year after the June 7, 2016 decision, the Board finds that it was untimely filed. Consequently, appellant must demonstrate clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP in denying her claim.

On reconsideration appellant submitted additional medical evidence from Drs. Ellis, Bond, Nelson, Booth, and West. However, none of these doctors specifically addressed the underlying disability issue. As noted, the term clear evidence of error is intended to represent a difficult standard, the claimant must present evidence which on its face shows that OWCP made an error in its last merit decision. 16 The medical evidence submitted on reconsideration does not raise a substantial question concerning the correctness of OWCP’s June 7, 2016 merit decision.17

The Board has held that it is not enough merely to show that the evidence could be construed to produce a contrary conclusion.18 Even a detailed, well-rationalized medical report

10
J.S., Docket No. 16-1240 (issued December 1, 2016); supra note 5 at Chapter 2.1602.5a (September 2020).
11
Id.
12
D.S., Docket No. 17-0407 (issued May 24, 2017).
13
20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a); see F.N., Docket No. 18-1543 (issued March 6, 2019); Alberta Dukes, 56 ECAB 247 (2005).
14
Supra note 5 at Chapter 2.1602.4 (September 2020); see L.A., Docket No. 19-0471 (issued October 29, 2019);
Veletta C. Coleman, 48 ECAB 367, 370 (1997).
15
20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); see Debra McDavid, 57 ECAB 149 (2005).
16
Supra note 9; see also C.B., Docket No. 25-0297 (issued March 26, 2025).
17
C.M., Docket No. 23-0958 (issued May 10, 2024).
18
W.R., Docket No. 24-0244 (issued May 22, 2024); A.N., Docket No. 24-0503 (issued July 15, 2024); C.M., Docket No. 23-0958 (issued May 10, 2024); U.C., Docket No. 19-1753 (issued June 10, 2020).

6 which, if submitted before the denial was issued, would have created a conflict in medical evidence requiring further development is insufficient to establish clear evidence of error. 19

The Board therefore finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration as it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 3, 2025 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 6, 2025
Washington, DC

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

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

19
M.W., Docket No. 24-0340 (issued May 13, 2024); K.W., Docket No. 19-1808 (issued April 2, 2020).

7