01.03.2013 Views

Printing - FECA-PT2 - National Association of Letter Carriers

Printing - FECA-PT2 - National Association of Letter Carriers

Printing - FECA-PT2 - National Association of Letter Carriers

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

postmark, or it is not legible, other evidence such as (but not limited to) certified mail<br />

receipts, certificate <strong>of</strong> service, and affidavits, may be used to establish the mailing date.<br />

Otherwise, the date <strong>of</strong> the letter itself should be used.<br />

(2) Decisions Issued Before June 1, 1987. No time limit applies to requests for<br />

reconsideration <strong>of</strong> these decisions because there was no regulatory time limit for requesting<br />

reconsideration prior to June 1, 1987. Therefore, a request for reconsideration may not be<br />

denied as untimely unless the claimant was advised <strong>of</strong> the one-year filing requirement in a<br />

later decision denying an application for reconsideration or denying modification <strong>of</strong> the<br />

contested decision. In these cases, the one-year time limit begins on the date <strong>of</strong> the<br />

decision that includes notice <strong>of</strong> the time limitation. (See paragraph 6 below.)<br />

(3) The regulations at 20 CFR 10.607 (b) provide that OWCP will consider an untimely<br />

application for reconsideration only if the application demonstrates clear evidence <strong>of</strong><br />

error on the part <strong>of</strong> OWCP in its most recent merit decision. The application must<br />

establish, on its face, that such decision was erroneous.<br />

c. Clear Evidence <strong>of</strong> Error. The term "clear evidence <strong>of</strong> error" is intended to represent a<br />

difficult standard. The claimant must present evidence which on its face shows that the OWCP<br />

made a mistake (for example, pro<strong>of</strong> that a schedule award was miscalculated). Evidence such as a<br />

detailed, well-rationalized medical report which, if submitted before the denial was issued, would<br />

have created a conflict in medical opinion requiring further development, is not clear evidence <strong>of</strong><br />

error. John Crawford, 52 ECAB 395(2001); Dean D. Beets, 43 ECAB 1153 (1992); Leona N. Travis,<br />

43 ECAB 227 (1991).<br />

Note: The one-year time limit to file a reconsideration request does not include any time following<br />

the decision that the claimant can establish (through medical evidence) an inability to<br />

communicate and that his testimony would be necessary. See 20 C.F.R. 10.607 (c); John<br />

Crawford, 52 ECAB 395 (2001) [Appellant failed to submit any evidence to establish his inability to<br />

communicate].<br />

<strong>FECA</strong>-<strong>PT2</strong> Printed: 06/08/2010 676

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!