United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.P., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

New York, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1835 

Issued: May 26, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Ramon Rosado, for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 18, 2014 appellant, through his representative, filed a timely appeal from a 

June 16, 2014 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

The Board has jurisdiction over this decision. As more than 180 days has elapsed since issuance 

of OWCP’s most recent merit decision dated September 5, 2013 to the filing of this appeal on 

August 18, 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 to review the merits of the claim.2 

ISSUE 

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

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

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 Appellant timely requested oral argument pursuant to section 501.5(b) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). The Board denied the request in an April 23, 2015 order on the grounds that her arguments 

could be adequately addressed based on a review of the case record. Order Denying Request for Oral Argument, 

Docket No. 14-1835 (issued April 23, 2015). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 10, 2013 appellant, then a 24-year-old carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

alleging that on July 8, 2013 he sustained muscle spasm and low back pain in the performance of 

duty. He alleged that he began to experience back pain after lifting a box at work. Appellant 

stopped work on July 8, 2013. 

In a July 12, 2013 attending physician report, Dr. Jeff Mollins, a chiropractor, advised 

that appellant injured himself at work. He assessed strain/sprain of the lumbar spine, radicular 

syndrome, and lumbago. Dr. Mollins checked the box marked “yes” to indicate that appellant’s 

condition was caused or aggravated by his employment. 

By letter dated July 23, 2013, OWCP notified appellant that evidence was insufficient to 

establish his claim and advised him of the type of evidence needed. 

Appellant provided additional medical evidence. In a July 8, 2013 hospital discharge 

report, Dr. Lorraine Giordano, Board-certified in emergency medicine, advised that appellant 

was throwing heavy boxes into a bin that morning at work when he began experiencing mid low 

back pain. On physical examination she noted that there was minimal tenderness of the lower 

back. Dr. Giordano diagnosed low back pain. 

In a July 10, 2013 chiropractic report, Dr. Mollins advised that appellant began to 

experience back pain when he threw a package at work. He diagnosed lumbosacral radicular 

syndrome, lumbosacral sprain/strain, and lumbago. Dr. Mollins noted that appellant also 

complained of stiffness and right leg pain. 

In a July 12, 2013 report, Dr. Bhim Nangia, Board-certified in psychiatry and neurology, 

advised that appellant was involved in a work-related accident where he injured his back. He 

noted that appellant complained of lower back pain that radiated to his legs, numbness, and 

tingling. Dr. Nangia advised that appellant had trouble standing and walking for prolonged 

periods of time. On physical examination he noted that appellant had an antalgic gait, pain in 

back forward flexion, increased pain on extension of the lumbar spine, multiple areas of mild 

tenderness along the lumbosacral spine and paraspinal muscles especially at L1-L5, and 

paraspinal muscle spasm with restriction in range of motion. Dr. Nangia assessed lumbar 

strain/sprain and lumbar radiculitis. He opined that based on the history and physical 

examination there was a reasonable degree of medical certainty that appellant’s injuries were 

“causally related to the accident noted above.” 

In a July 31, 2013 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Nangia advised that 

appellant was injured at work on July 8, 2013. He assessed lumbosacral radiculopathy and noted 

that he was unsure when appellant would be able to return to work. Dr. Nangia checked the box 

marked “yes,” indicating that appellant’s condition was caused or aggravated by his 

employment. 

By decision dated September 5, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because the 

medical evidence was insufficient to establish that there was a condition diagnosed in connection 

with the work-related incident. 
3

Appellant continued to submit evidence. In a September 25, 2013 report, Dr. Nangia 

advised that appellant injured his lower back while at work. Appellant related that he was 

handling a heavy package when he felt a sudden onset of pain in his lower back that radiated 

down his right leg. On physical examination Dr. Nangia noted that appellant had an antalgic 

gait, pain in back forward flexion, increased pain on extension of the lumbar spine, multiple 

areas of mild tenderness along the lumbosacral spine and paraspinal muscles especially at L1-L5, 

and paraspinal muscle spasm with restriction in range of motion. He opined that based on the 

history and physical examination there was a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the 

patient’s condition was “causally related to accident noted above.” 

In a July 10, 2013 disability status report, Dr. Mollins advised that appellant was being 

treated for injuries he sustained in a work-related accident and was unable to do his job for an 

undetermined period of time. In an August 23, 2013 disability status report, he advised that 

appellant was injured at work on July 8, 2013 and that he was able to return to work. 

On December 16, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration. In an accompanying 

undated statement, received on December 27, 2013, he advised that he picked up a parcel at 

work using proper lifting technique. Appellant noted that he initially felt slight discomfort, but 

not long afterward, he began to experience agonizing pain that prevented him from walking or 

standing. He advised that he was transported to the emergency room by ambulance. Several 

witness statements from appellant’s coworkers were submitted corroborating his account of the 

incident. 

By decision dated June 16, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim without review of the 

merits. It noted that his claim was denied for insufficient medical evidence; however, she 

submitted no relevant medical evidence with her request. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

 3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2). 

4 Id. at § 10.607(a). 

5 Id. at § 10.608(b). 
4

ANALYSIS 

In a September 5, 2013 merit decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

medical evidence did not establish that there was a condition diagnosed in connection with the 

work incident. Appellant submitted a timely request for reconsideration which was denied on 

June 16, 2014 without a merit review. 

Appellant also submitted several statements from coworkers corroborating his account of 

the incident. As noted, this aspect of the claim is not in dispute. Thus, this evidence is not 

relevant to the underlying medical issue. The disability status reports from Dr. Mollins indicate 

that appellant was injured at work but these reports address causal relationship in essentially the 

same manner of Dr. Mollins’ July 10 and 12, 2013 reports. The Board has held that evidence or 

argument that repeats or duplicates evidence previously of record has no evidentiary value and 

does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.6 The September 25, 2013 report by Dr. Nangia 

does constitute relevant new evidence because it is substantially similar to his earlier July 12, 

2013 report with regard to his opinion on causal relationship. In fact, his opinion on causal 

relationship is exactly the same. The only difference in the July 12, 2013 report and the 

September 25, 2013 report is that the later report includes the history of the injury as provided by 

appellant but, as noted, Dr. Nangia does not change the manner in which he addresses causal 

relationship. Consequently, new evidence submitted does not constitute relevant new evidence. 

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

review of the merits. The underlying issue in this case is whether appellant established that the 

work incident caused or contributed to a diagnosed medical condition. This is a medical issue. 

OWCP, in its July 23, 2013 letter, as well as its September 5, 2013 initial decision, informed 

appellant of the defects of his claim and particularly advised him of why the medical evidence 

was deficient. In his reconsideration request, appellant explained how the claimed injury 

occurred and what he did after the claimed injury. However, this aspect of appellant’s claim is 

not disputed by OWCP. This does not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a 

specific point of law nor does it advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by 

OWCP.7

 

On appeal appellant argued that the medical evidence submitted was sufficient to 

establish his claim. However, as noted, the Board does not have jurisdiction over the merits of 

the claim. Because appellant failed to meet any of the three regulatory criteria for reopening a 

claim, he was not entitled to further merit review of his claim. 

CONCLUSION 

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

review of the merits. 

 6 E.M., Docket No. 09-39 (issued March 3, 2009). 

7 See Darletha Coleman, 55 ECAB 143 (2003) (evidence that does not address the particular issue involved does 

not constitute a basis for reopening a case). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 16, 2014 decision of Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 26, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board