Printing - FECA-PT2 - National Association of Letter Carriers

no longer be considered so in light of the ECAB decisions quoted above. Therefore, it may
sometimes be necessary to rescind a claim where the acceptance was based on factors which are
no longer considered to fall within performance of duty. Decisions to rescind acceptance of a claim
will be made only by journey-level CEs and above.
The Board has upheld the Office's authority to reopen a claim at any time on its own motion under
section 8128(a) of the Act and, where supported by the evidence, set aside or modify a prior
decision and issue a new decision. (Eli Jacobs, 32 ECAB 1147). To justify rescission of acceptance,
the Office must establish that its prior acceptance was erroneous based on a new or different
evidence or through new legal argument and/or rationale as was done in the case of Curtis Hall,
Docket No. 92-683, issued January 11, 1994.
In that case, appellant claimed an employment-related disabling emotional condition which he
attributed to a confrontation with a coworker who objected to his bible reading during work breaks.
He also alleged a previous incident when a toxic substance had been placed in his chair causing
contact dermatitis, diabetes mellitus and hypertension. The Office accepted appellant's claim for a
depressive reaction based solely upon medical opinion evidence without determining whether his
allegations were supported by the factual evidence of record.
After appellant's claim was accepted, the employing establishment physician submitted a report to
the Office which stated that appellant had sat on his own super glue pen container, which was not
issued and used in his job, and that the incident would not cause hypertension or diabetes mellitus.
On further review, the Office found that appellant's emotional condition did not arise out of factors
of his federal employment, and that the medical opinion evidence on causal relationship was
unrationalized.
An office hearing representative found that the alleged incidents of confrontation and placement of
super glue on appellant's chair were not established as factual; that the medical reports of
appellant's attending physician were based on an inaccurate history and therefore of little probative
value; and that the reports of the physicians of record did not find appellant disabled for his
position.
The Board found that the Office met its burden of proof to rescind its acceptance of this claim
based on new medical evidence and the provision of new legal rationale that the implicated work
related incidents were not established as factual.
FECA-PT2 Printed: 06/08/2010 207