United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

I.B., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN 

SERVICES, ADMINISTRATION FOR 

CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Mount Laurel, NJ, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1839 

Issued: January 8, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 18, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from the February 21 and July 25, 

2014 nonmerit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying 

his requests for reconsideration. The last merit decision in this case was issued on 

November 8, 2013. Since more than 180 days have elapsed since the last merit decision of 

November 8, 2013 and the filing of this appeal, and 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly refused to reopen appellant’s case for further 

review on the merits pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

On appeal, appellant contends that the medical evidence establishes that he suffers from 

carpal tunnel syndrome causally related to his federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 12, 2013 appellant, then a 63-year-old program specialist, filed an 

occupational disease claim alleging that, as a result of his federal duties which involved 

significant repetitive movements including typing, using a mouse, and inputting data into the 

computer, he developed carpal tunnel syndrome. 

By decision dated November 8, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as he failed to 

establish a causal connection between the accepted duties of his federal employment and his 

diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome. In reaching its decision, it reviewed various medical reports 

including a September 25, 2013 note by Dr. John S. Taras, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon 

with a Board-certified subspecialty in surgery of the hand, who reported that he was treating 

appellant for bilateral carpal tunnel symptoms resulting from his job duties involving “a 

significant amount of repetitive movements such as long periods of typing and use of a mouse.” 

On January 16, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration. He contended that the medical 

evidence established that he had carpal tunnel syndrome causally related to his federal 

employment. Appellant resubmitted the September 25, 2013 note by Dr. Taras along with a 

January 3, 2014 work/activity status form wherein Dr. Taras marked a box indicating that 

appellant could work full duty with no restrictions. 

By decision dated February 21, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration without conducting a merit review. 

On April 21, 2014 appellant again requested reconsideration. In a letter almost identical 

to the letter of January 16, 2014, he reargued that the medical evidence supported that he 

sustained carpal tunnel syndrome causally related to the duties of his federal employment. 

Appellant resubmitted the September 25, 2013 note by Dr. Taras. 

By decision dated July 25, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s reconsideration request 

without conducting a merit review of the evidence. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128(a) of FECA,2

OWCP’s regulations provide that the evidence or argument submitted by a claimant must: 

(1) show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advance a 

relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitute relevant and 

pertinent new evidence not previously considered by OWCP.3 To be entitled to a merit review 

 2 Id. at §§ 8101-8193. Under section 8128 of FECA, “[t]he Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against 

payment of compensation at any time on [her] own motion or on application.” 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

3 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 
3

of an OWCP decision denying or terminating a benefit, a claimant also must file his or her 

application for review within one year of the date of that decision.4

 When a claimant fails to 

meet one of the above standards, OWCP will deny the application for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for review on the merits.5

 

The Board has held that the submission of evidence or argument which repeats or 

duplicates evidence or argument already in the case record and the submission of evidence or 

argument which does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for 

reopening a case.6

ANALYSIS 

By decision dated November 8, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation, 

as it determined that appellant had failed to establish a causal connection between the accepted 

duties of his federal employment and his diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome. Appellant requested 

reconsideration on January 16 and April 21, 2014. His requests for reconsideration were denied 

in decisions dated February 21 and July 25, 2014. 

On appeal, appellant argues the merits of his claim, i.e., he contends that the medical 

evidence supports that he suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome causally related to his federal 

employment. However, as noted previously, as the last merit decision, dated November 8, 2013, 

was issued more than 180 days before the filing of this appeal on August 18, 2014, the Board is 

precluded from considering the merits of the claim on appeal.7

The threshold issue to be resolved is whether appellant established that his carpal tunnel 

syndrome was causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment. This was a 

medical issue which must be addressed by pertinent new and relevant medical evidence.8

 The 

only new evidence submitted by appellant on reconsideration was a January 3, 2014 

work/activity status form signed by Dr. Taras indicating that appellant could work full duty with 

no restrictions. The Board has held that the submission of evidence which does not address the 

particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.9

 As the work/activity 

status form does not address the issue of causal relationship, it does not constitute a basis for 

reopening appellant’s case. Appellant also resubmitted the September 25, 2013 report by 

Dr. Taras, a report previously considered by OWCP when it denied appellant’s claim. Evidence 

 4 Id. at § 10.607(a). 

5 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(b). 

6 T.E., Docket No. 14-1047 (issued October 9, 2014). 

7 See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e); see also A.B., Docket No. 13-1465 (issued June 4, 2014). 

8 See J.S., Docket No. 14-465 (issued October 16, 2014). 

9 P.C., 58 ECAB 405, 412 (2007); Ronald A. Eldridge, 53 ECAB 218, 222 (2001); Alan G. Williams, 52 ECAB 

180, 187 (2000). 
4

that repeats or duplicates evidence already in the case record has no evidentiary value and does 

not constitute a basis for reopening a case.10

The Board finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3). Appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific 

point of law, advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP or 

constitute pertinent new and relevant evidence not previously considered. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly refused to reopen appellant’s case for further 

review on the merits pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decisions of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated July 25 and February 21, 2014 are affirmed. 

Issued: January 8, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 10 P.B., Docket No. 14-908 (issued October 9, 2014).