United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SPRING VALLEY 

STATION, Las Vegas, NV, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-439 

Issued: April 15, 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 December 17, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a nonmerit decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) dated August 13, 2014. As more than 180 

days elapsed since the last merit decision, June 19, 2013, to the filing of this appeal on 

December 17, 2014, 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 

reconsideration of her claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This is the second appeal before the Board. On April 2, 2009 appellant, a 46-year-old 

customer service supervisor, filed a claim for benefits, alleging that she strained her back, her left 

thigh, and both knees while lifting trays and tubs of mail on March 13, 2009. 

Appellant submitted medical records indicating that she had a history of low back pain in 

addition to numbness and paresthesias in the distal lower extremities. She submitted form 

reports dated April 7 and 9, 2009 from Dr. Main Coppel, a Board-certified anesthesiologist 

specializing in pain management, who advised that she had experienced a new onset of spinal 

pain and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy and bilateral knee pain which began after her 

March 13, 2009 work injury. He stated, however, that he believed that she was exaggerating her 

complaints of pain during her physical examination. Dr. Coppel diagnosed cervical facet 

syndrome, thoracic facet syndrome, lumbar facet syndrome, lumbar radiculopathy, and knee pain 

and checked a box indicating that appellant’s condition was due to an injury arising out of her 

employment. 

In a decision dated May 13, 2009, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she 

failed to submit medical evidence sufficient to establish that the claimed medical condition was 

related to the established work-related event. By decision dated December 30, 2009, an OWCP 

hearing representative affirmed the May 13, 2009 decision. It denied reconsideration in a 

nonmerit decision dated September 30, 2010. In decisions dated January 5 and July 6, 2011, 

OWCP denied modification of the May 13, 2009 decision. In a March 23, 2012 decision,2

 the 

Board affirmed the July 6, 2011 decision. The complete facts of this case are set forth in the 

Board’s March 23, 2012 decision and are herein incorporated by reference. 

By letter dated May 3, 2012, appellant requested reconsideration. 

In a January 12, 2010 report, received by OWCP on February 11, 2013, Dr. Jimmy J. 

Novero, Board-certified in neurology, stated that appellant was experiencing low back pain, 

numbness in her feet, and weakness in her lower extremities. He advised that her physical 

findings were consistent with a peripheral neuropathy, with sensory loss in her distal lower 

extremities, decreased symmetrical reflexes, and mild-to-moderate weakness on the left lower 

extremity. Dr. Novero opined that appellant had peripheral neuropathy based on her symptoms, 

examination findings, and diagnostic tests, in addition to low back pain which could be due to 

radiculopathy worsened by heavy lifting. 

In an April 18, 2012 report, received by OWCP on February 11, 2013, Dr. Siamek 

Rouzroch, Board-certified in internal medicine, stated that he had been treating appellant since 

2010 and that she sustained an injury while lifting heavy tubs and trays of mail. He advised that 

she injured her back, both knees, and left thigh and was diagnosed with back sprain and lumbar 

radiculopathy/sciatica which aggravated an August 25, 2008 lumbar radiculopathy injury. 

Dr. Rouzroch stated that appellant also sustained a bilateral knee sprain and left thigh sprain due 

to the March 13, 2009 heavy lifting injury. He noted that she had undergone a magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan in 2010. 

                                                             2

 Docket No. 11-2007 (issued March 23, 2012). 
3

In a May 8, 2013 report, Dr. Rouzroch reiterated his previous findings and conclusions. 

He noted that appellant had injured her back, both knees, and left thigh due to heavy lifting on 

March 13, 2009 and had been diagnosed with the following conditions: cervical facet syndrome, 

lumbar facet syndrome, thoracic facet syndrome, lumbar radiculopathy, knee pain, and back 

sprain-lumbar radiculopathy/sciatica. Dr. Rouzroch reiterated that this exacerbated a previous 

lumbar radiculopathy injury which occurred on August 25, 2008. He advised again that the 

March 13, 2009 heavy lifting injury aggravated the lumbar radiculopathy stemming from her 

August 25, 2008 injury. He advised that she was currently medically disabled. 

On June 19, 2013 OWCP denied modification of the prior decision. 

By letter dated June 17, 2014, appellant requested reconsideration. She stated that her 

reconsideration request was based upon a legal argument. Appellant stated that OWCP had not 

considered her medical evidence collectively. She explained that she had prior injuries, 

including to the lower back, but that prior claims had been denied; therefore, she had focused her 

explanation of injury on her current injury and did not mention her previous injuries to her 

doctors. Appellant concluded that she had sustained a new injury to her back and knees. She did 

not submit any additional medical evidence. 

By decision dated August 13, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s application for review on 

the grounds that it neither raised substantive legal questions nor included new and relevant 

evidence sufficient to require OWCP to review its prior decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b), a claimant may obtain review of the merits of his or her 

claim by showing that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; by 

advancing a relevant legal argument not considered by OWCP; or by constituting relevant and 

pertinent evidence not previously considered by OWCP.3 Evidence that repeats or duplicates 

evidence already in the case record has no evidentiary value and does not constitute a basis for 

reopening a case.4

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, appellant has not shown that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law; nor has she advanced a relevant legal argument not previously 

considered by OWCP. 

Appellant requested reconsideration and stated that she was presenting a new legal 

argument. However, appellant merely summarized her own understanding of the medical 

evidence of record. The Board has previously held that an appellant’s lay opinion does not 

                                                             3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(1); see generally 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

4 Howard A. Williams, 45 ECAB 853 (1994). 
4

constitute new evidence or relevant legal argument and is not sufficient to require OWCP to 

reopen the claim.5

Appellant did not submit any new evidence in support of her reconsideration request. Her 

reconsideration request failed to show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a point of 

law nor did it advance a point of law or fact not previously considered by OWCP. OWCP did 

not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen appellant’s claim for a review on the merits in its 

August 13, 2014 decision.

CONCLUSION 

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

reconsideration on the merits of her claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 13, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs be affirmed. 

Issued: April 15, 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 

                                                             5 J.S., Docket No. 09-2122 (June 14, 2010).