20 C.F.R. § 10.607

What is the time limit for requesting reconsideration?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) An application for reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of the OWCP decision for which review is sought.

(b) OWCP will consider an untimely application for reconsideration only if the application demonstrates clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP in its most recent merit decision. The application must establish, on its face, that such decision was erroneous.

(c) The year in which a claimant has to timely request reconsideration shall not include any period subsequent to an OWCP decision for which the claimant can establish through probative medical evidence that he or she is unable to communicate in any way and that his or her testimony is necessary in order to obtain modification of the decision.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2005–2019 · leading case: Gallucci v. Chao, 374 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gallucci v. Chao, 374 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2005). “606 (2003); 20 C.F.R. § 10.607 (2003); or (3) within one year, file an appeal with the Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board (“ECAB”).”

Arnold v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 572 F. App'x 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “Arnold’s argument whether his reliance on the one-year time limit to challenge OWCP decisions, see 20 C.F.R. § 10.607 (a) (2011), was reasonable.”

Est. of Williams By & Through Williams v. Brennan, 371 F. Supp. 3d 343 (N.D. Miss. 2019). “20 C.F.R. § 10.607 . The plaintiff then has "six months after the date of mailing" of the ECAB's notice of denial to file a proper FTCA claim against the United States.”

Silbaugh v. United States Dep't of Labor (W.D. Wash. 2019). “See 20 C.F.R. § 10.607 . Such requests must also be in writing, signed and dated by the claimant, and accompanied by relevant new evidence or argument not previously considered 26 by OWCP.”

James R. Arnold v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2015). “(citing 20 C.F.R. § 10.607 (a)). The court noted that the appellant’s PFE was related to OWCP proceedings because the purpose of both was to obtain disability compensation.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.