United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.F., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Decatur, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0975 

Issued: August 5, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 31, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 9, 2015 nonmerit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). As more than 180 days 

elapsed from the filing of this appeal and the last merit decision issued on May 9, 2014, pursuant 

to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the 

Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of this case.2

 

ISSUE 

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

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

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 31, 2014 appellant, then a 58-year-old distribution, sales, and services 

associate, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging tendinitis and carpal tunnel 

syndrome due to repetitive movements at work. These movements included throwing parcels 

and processing mail. Appellant reported that she had previous right hand surgery in 

January 2012 and returned to work in March 2012 with restrictions for her right hand. She stated 

that she did everything with her left hand and over time developed the same problems in her left 

hand. Appellant first became aware of her condition on January 18, 2013 and first realized it 

resulted from her employment on January 19, 2013. She stopped work on December 16, 2013 

and did not return. 

On November 7, 2013 the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim 

arguing that she had failed to provide medical documentation establishing a causal relationship 

between a diagnosed condition and her employment. It noted that appellant’s previous right 

hand surgery was not employment related. OWCP also received a position description for a 

distribution, sales, and services associate. 

In a February 19, 2014 letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of record was 

insufficient to support her claim. It requested a medical report containing a physician’s opinion 

with a medical explanation of how her work factors caused the claimed condition. OWCP also 

requested that the employing establishment provide comments from a knowledgeable supervisor 

on the accuracy of appellant’s statements. 

In a December 16, 2013 operative report, Dr. Linda Cendales, a general surgeon, reported 

that appellant underwent left wrist surgery to treat de Quervain’s disease. She reported, in a 

March 12, 2014 form report, that appellant was seen on December 27, 2013 for left wrist pain. 

Dr. Cendales diagnosed de Quervain’s disease and indicated that appellant could return to 

limited duty on April 4, 2014. 

In a March 13, 2014 statement, appellant described her employment duties as breaking 

down mail, throwing parcels, and casing letters. She confirmed having surgery on her right wrist 

and indicated that it was to treat a repetitive stress injury. 

On May 9, 2014 OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the medical evidence did 

not demonstrate that appellant’s condition was causally related to her employment. 

By letter dated September 9, 2014, received on September 17, 2014, appellant requested 

reconsideration on September 9, 2014. She did not submit additional evidence or offer 

arguments in support of her request. 

In a January 9, 2015 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

finding it insufficient to warrant a merit review of its prior decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

regulations provide that a claimant must: (1) show that OWCP erroneously applied or 
3

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 Where the request for reconsideration fails to meet at least one of these 

standards, OWCP will deny the application for reconsideration without reopening the case for 

review of the merits.4

ANALYSIS 

In a May 9, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim and on 

September 9, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration. 

The Board has no jurisdiction over the merits of appellant’s claim and can consider only 

whether appellant met any of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3), which would prompt 

OWCP to reopen the case for merit review. In her September 9, 2014 request for 

reconsideration, appellant did not submit any new and pertinent evidence, advance a relevant 

legal argument not previously considered, or contend that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law. Accordingly, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied 

merit review.5

On appeal, appellant contends that OWCP failed to consider medical evidence that she 

submitted with her request for reconsideration. She asserts that it might have been misplaced.6 

However, there is no evidence on record that appellant submitted any documentation with her 

request. 

CONCLUSION 

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

under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) without further merit review. 

 3 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3); see J.M., Docket No. 09-218 (issued July 24, 2009). 

4 Id. at § 10.608(b); see K.H., 59 ECAB 495, 499 (2008). 

5 See J.C., Docket No. 11-236 (issued August 12, 2011). 

6

 Specifically, appellant describes a medical report, not found in the case record, in which an unnamed physician 

allegedly stated that appellant’s injury was most likely caused by her repetitive work duties. 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 9, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: August 5, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board