Home

Ask for Help Here

Send Me Your File Here

Join Our Forum Here!

How Much Will This Cost?

CURRENT NEWS UPDATES

Follow on Twitter

Social Security Disability

GET SSA FORMS HERE!

SSA Disability

SSA Case Decisions

Martinez v. Astrue

Lockwood v SSA

Genier v Astrue

McClesky v Astrue

Carlston v. Astrue

Johnson v. Astrue

Dipple v. Astrue

Bowman v Astrue

Maes v Astrue

Carpenter v Astrue

Poppa v. Astrue

Artz v. Barnhart

Anderson v. Astrue

Marshall v. Astrue

Madron v. Astrue 02/11/09

Cruse v. USDHHS

Haddock v Apfel

Passmore v Astrue 8th cca

Moss v Astrue 02/05/09

Bray v. Astrue 02/06/09

Conkle v Astrue 07-6104

Federal Worker's Compensation

OWCP

ECAB Case Decisions

RR v USPS

TW v. USPS

AS v. Peace Corps

JD v. Dept of Interior

AP v. Dept of VA

AD v. Navy ECAB 09-2030

LT v USPS

AJ V. USPS

FW v Dept of Navy

L.D. v. USPS

NW v Dept of Navy

JM v Dept of VA

KL v Dept of Navy

DF v. US Marines

CS v. Dept Homeland Secur

D.H. v. USPS

SB v USPS

RA v Dept of Agriculture

BC v USPS

MT v Dept of Army

P.G. vs Dept of Navy

K.H. v USPS

Nelson v IRS 04-2123

VIVENS v USPS 90-1500

HAWKINS v VA 03-1232

Rose v USPS 905 F2d 1257

D.L. v. USPS 08-1873

D.M. v. Dept Army 08-1814

R.C. V USPS 08-11641

Delatat v USAF 2008-3038

RM v Army 97-2145

WS v DOS 08-1797

IH v USPS 08-1352

Kramm v. DOA 05-715

Pygman v DOI 01-1604

J.B. v. USPS 08-1178

F.H. v. DAF 07-1379

M.C. v DOI 08-1581

J.S. v DOL 08-373

E.K. v. DOA 08-421

Tiller v DOA 99-118

R.M. v USPS 08-528

Sligh v USPS 03-1621

M.C. v USPS 05-443

M.M. v DVA 07-2103

K.H. v USPS 08-1053

E.M. v DOD 07-1074

J.M. v USPS 08-1075

OPM/MSPB Claims

FERS Disability

OPM Case Decisions

Lambright v OPM

Yashimoto v OPM

Smith v. OPM

Hubbard v MSPB

Cabanayan v OPM

Simpkins v OPM

Sachs v OPM

MAPLES v OPM

REILLY v. OPM

VANIEKAN-RYALS v OPM

POSTELL-PORTER v OPM

Torres v. OPM

Johnston v OPM 04-3260

McLaughlin v OPM 2004

Licausi v. OPM 12/02/03

Townsend v OPM 02-3064

Lensing v OPM 07-3267

Kessler v OPM 08-3068

Forms and Documents

Links

Link To Us

United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

 

 

 


 

 

T.W., Appellant and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, Washington, DC, Employer


)

)

)

)             Docket No. 11-732

)             Issued: November 29, 2011

)

)


                                                                                         )

 

Appearances:                                                                          Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

 

 

 

ORDER REMANDING CASE

 

 

Before:

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Judge COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

 

On January 28, 2011 appellant timely appealed the September 15, 2010 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), which terminated her compensation benefits.    She  also  timely  appealed  the  December 22,  2010  nonmerit  decision  denying  her request for a hearing.1  The Board assigned the appeal Docket No. 11-732.

 

After OWCP terminated appellant’s compensation on September 15, 2010, she submitted new evidence and requested a hearing before the Branch of Hearings and Review.  Appellant’s request was undated.  However, it bears a time stamp indicating that the Branch of Hearings and Review received the request on November 1, 2010.  The imaged record does not include a copy of the envelope that appellant presumably used to submit her hearing request.

 

The regulations clearly specify that “[t]he hearing request must be sent within 30 days (as determined by postmark or other carrier’s date marking) of the date of the decision for which a hearing is sought.”2   The Branch of Hearings and Review denied the request as untimely based on the November 1, 2010 date stamp.   The applicable regulation does not measure timeliness based on the date of receipt, but instead based on the postmark.  Because the Branch of Hearings and Review did not retain a copy of the envelope, the Board is unable to determine whether appellant’s hearing request was timely filed.3   Accordingly, the case will be remanded to the Branch of Hearings and Review.   If the date of the postmark cannot be determined, OWCP should presume that the request was timely and grant the request for hearing, as it was OWCP’s responsibility to keep the envelope or otherwise keep evidence of the date of mailing in the case record.4

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 22, 2010 decision of the Branch of Hearings and Review is set aside, and the case is remanded for further action consistent with this order of the Board, to include a de novo decision on the merits.

 

Issued: November 29, 2011

Washington, DC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alec J. Koromilas, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

 

 

 

 

 

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

 1 Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193, and 20 C.F.R.

§§ 501.2(c) and 501.3 (2011), the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case. The record forwarded to the Board includes evidence received after OWCP issued its December 22, 2010 decision. The Board’s appellate review is limited to evidence that was in the case record at the time OWCP issued its final decision. 20 C.F.R.

§ 501.2(c).

2 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a).

3 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Hearings & Reviews of the Written Record, Chapter

2.1601.3b (October 1992).

 

4 Carolyn O’Neal, 53 ECAB 645 (2002).

 

 

 

2


Home | Social Security Disability | Federal Worker's Compensation | OPM Medical Disability Retirement | Contact Us

Copyright © 2008 James R. Linehan P.C.. All rights reserved.

Web Hosting powered by Network Solutions®

Dr. Daniel Hutt DSW, LCSW, BCD