United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.A., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY 

DEPOT, Corpus Christi, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1447 

Issued: October 21, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Kenneth A. Weeks, for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 9, 2014 appellant, through his representative, filed a timely appeal from the 

February 25, 2014 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

(OWCP). 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 denied appellant’s reconsideration request under 

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 3, 2002 appellant, a 43-year-old pneudraulics systems mechanic, claimed a 

traumatic injury in the performance of duty when, while walking down stairs, his right foot 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

slipped, his right knee twisted and he heard a popping sound. OWCP accepted his claim for 

right knee sprain/strain and right medial meniscus tear. 

Appellant underwent two authorized arthroscopic surgeries. On January 18, 2006 he 

received a schedule award for a 22 percent impairment of his right lower extremity. 

In 2011 appellant underwent a total right knee replacement. On August 23, 2013 he 

received an additional schedule award of 3 percent, representing a total right lower extremity 

impairment of 25 percent. 

On January 21, 2014 appellant submitted an appeal request form indicating with a 

checkmark that he wished to request reconsideration of the August 23, 2013 schedule award. 

OWCP received this request on January 29, 2014. 

In a decision dated February 25, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s reconsideration request. 

It found that the request neither raised substantive legal questions nor included new and relevant 

evidence and was therefore insufficient to warrant a review of the prior decision. 

Appellant contends on appeal that an impairment rating of April 23, 2013 showed a 

greater impairment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

OWCP may review an award for or against payment of compensation at any time on its 

own motion or upon application.2 An employee (or representative) seeking reconsideration 

should send the request for reconsideration to the address as instructed by OWCP in the final 

decision. The request for reconsideration, including all supporting documents, must be in 

writing and must set forth arguments and contain evidence that either: (1) shows that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advances a relevant legal argument 

not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not 

previously considered by OWCP.3

A request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of 

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.4 A timely request for reconsideration may be 

granted if OWCP determines that the employee has presented evidence or argument that meets at 

least one of these standards. If reconsideration is granted, the case is reopened and the case is 

reviewed on its merits. Where the request is timely but fails to meet at least one of these 

standards, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without reopening the case for a 

review on the merits.5

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606. 

4 Id. at § 10.607(a). 

5 Id. at § 10.608. 
3

ANALYSIS 

The Board has no jurisdiction to review the August 23, 2013 additional schedule award. 

Appellant had 180 days, or until February 19, 2014, to appeal that decision to the Board. The 

only decision that the Board may now review is OWCP’s February 25, 2014 nonmerit decision 

denying his reconsideration request. 

OWCP received appellant’s reconsideration request within one calendar year of the 

August 23, 2013 schedule award decision. Appellant’s request was therefore timely. The 

question for determination is whether this request met at least one of the three standards for 

obtaining a merit review of his case. 

Appellant’s request consisted solely of an appeal request form and a checkmark 

indicating that he wished to request reconsideration. He offered no argument or evidence to 

support his request. Appellant provided no reason why he wanted OWCP to reconsider the 

additional schedule award. Such a bare request is insufficient on its face to warrant a reopening 

of his case.6

Appellant’s request did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific 

point of law. It did not advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP 

nor did it contain relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by OWCP. 

As appellant’s request did not meet at least one of these standards, the Board finds that 

OWCP properly denied the request. The Board will therefore affirm OWCP’s February 25, 2014 

decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s reconsideration request. 

 6 X.R., Docket No. 12-373 (issued June 1, 2012). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 25, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 21, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board