United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.J., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Staten Island, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-357 

Issued: May 22, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas S. Harkins, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On December 2, 2013 appellant, through her attorney, filed a timely appeal from the 

June 14, 2013 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), 

which denied her reconsideration request. Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction to review this 

nonmerit decision. Under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s reconsideration request. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On November 25, 2005 appellant, then a 44-year-old mail processing clerk, sustained a 

traumatic injury in the performance of duty while lifting. OWCP accepted her claim for cervical 

radiculitis. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

In a decision dated June 8, 2007, OWCP terminated appellant’s monetary benefits under 

5 U.S.C. § 8106(c)(2) on the grounds that she refused an offer of suitable work. The Board 

reviewed the matter on December 3, 2008 and affirmed the termination.2

 The Board found that 

the weight of the medical evidence rested with the opinion of Dr. Stanley Soren, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon and impartial medical specialist. The Board found that the 

employing establishment offered appellant a modified assignment suitable to her medicallyestablished work restrictions. The Board also found that Dr. Raul P. Sala, the attending 

physiatrist, did not directly address the medical restrictions noted in Dr. Soren’s report and did 

not explain why appellant could not work the six hours required by the modified assignment. 

For that reason, Dr. Sala’s opinion was of diminished probative value and did not create a 

conflict with the opinion of the impartial medical specialist.3

 

In a decision dated July 6, 2011, OWCP denied authorization for medical treatment of 

appellant’s current complaints. It found that the medical opinion evidence failed to support a 

causal relationship between the need for treatment of her newly diagnosed conditions and the 

traumatic work incident on November 25, 2005, “as your conditions(s) pertains to the unrelated 

current diagnoses for the right shoulder and the cervical spine.” 

Appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. Counsel indicated that she was 

requesting reconsideration of OWCP’s July 6, 2011 decision denying authorization for medical 

treatment, as well as the Board’s December 3, 2008 decision affirming the termination of her 

monetary compensation.4 

Counsel argued that the medical evidence established that conditions other than the 

accepted condition were causally related to the November 25, 2005 work injury. In particular, he 

pointed to the April 12, 2011 report of Dr. Sala. Counsel contented that OWCP did not meet its 

burden of proof to terminate appellant’s compensation because the medical evidence 

unequivocally established that she was not capable of performing the duties of the offered 

position. He added that the opinions of OWCP-retained physicians were based on the injuries 

and conditions that OWCP had accepted as causally related to the work injury and not on the 

more significant injuries diagnosed by appellant’s treating physician, including rotator cuff 

syndrome of the right shoulder. 

On June 20, 2012 OWCP reviewed the merits of appellant’s case and denied modification 

of the July 6, 2011 prior decision. It found that medical evidence was not sufficient to support 

that the need for further treatment causally related to the November 25, 2005 work injury. 

Although Dr. Sala diagnosed cervical radiculopathy due to discogenic disease of the cervical 

spine and rotator cuff syndrome of the right shoulder, he did not adequately explain how those 

conditions were causally related to the November 25, 2005 work injury. 

 2

 OWCP accepted that on November 25, 2005 appellant, then a 44-year-old mail processing clerk, sustained 

cervical radiculitis in the performance of duty. 

3

 The facts of this case as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are hereby incorporated by reference. See Docket 

No. 08-1283 (issued December 3, 2008). 

4

 Appellant had 30 days after December 3, 2008 to file with the Board a petition for reconsideration of its 

decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.7. OWCP has no jurisdiction to reconsider a Board decision and order. 
3

Appellant, through counsel, again requested reconsideration. OWCP received the 

June 11, 2013 request on June 12, 2013. The request was a nearly identical copy of appellant’s 

previous reconsideration request. 

In a decision dated June 14, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s reconsideration request. It 

found that the request repetitious, as it was a copy of the request previously considered in the 

most recent merit decision. 

On appeal, counsel repeats the basic points argued in his reconsideration request. He 

states that OWCP’s denial of a merit review was “clearly improper in light of the evidence and 

argument contained within the second reconsideration request submitted to [OWCP].” 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

own motion or upon application.5

 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 it; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not 

previously considered by OWCP.6

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

OWCP decision for which review is sought.7 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.8

Evidence that repeats or duplicates evidence already in the record has no evidentiary 

value and constitutes no basis for reopening a case.9

ANALYSIS 

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

merit decision in her case, namely, OWCP’s June 20, 2012 decision denying modification of its 

 5

 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

6

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606. 

7 Id. at § 10.607(a). 

8 Id. at § 10.608. 

9 Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393 (1984); Bruce E. Martin, 35 ECAB 1090 (1984). 
4

decision to deny authorization for medical treatment. Appellant’s request is therefore timely. 

The question for determination is whether that request met at least one of the standards for 

obtaining a merit review of her case. 

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

point of law. The request did not advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered 

by OWCP. The legal arguments advanced were the same as those advanced in the previous 

request, which OWCP adjudicated on June 20, 2012. As the Board has held, evidence that 

repeats or duplicates evidence already in the record has no evidentiary value and constitutes no 

basis for reopening a case. A claimant may be entitled to a merit review by submitting relevant 

and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by OWCP, but appellant submitted no 

evidence to support her request. 

Accordingly, as appellant’s reconsideration request did not meet any of the requirements 

for reopening her case, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied a merit review. The Board 

will affirm OWCP’s June 14, 2013 decision. 

On appeal, counsel contents that OWCP’s denial of reconsideration was clearly improper, 

but failed to address the standards for obtaining reconsideration. The request simply disagrees 

with OWCP’s assessment of the weight of the medical evidence, either with respect to which 

medical conditions are causally related to the 2005 work injury or with respect to whether 

appellant refused an offer of suitable work. As to the latter, the most recent merit decision on the 

issue was the Board’s December 3, 2008 decision affirming the termination of appellant’s 

compensation. As the last merit decision was that of this Board and, as OWCP has not further 

reviewed this issue, the matter is res judicata and is not subject to further review by the Board on 

this appeal.10

CONCLUSION 

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

 10 See G.R., Docket No. 13-2054 (issued March 10, 2014); see also 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d) as to the finality of 

Board decisions. 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 14, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 22, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board