United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

V.R., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

PHILADELPHIA VETERANS 

ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, 

Philadelphia, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0883 

Issued: August 6, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 9, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a September 12, 2014 nonmerit 

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

elapsed between July 16, 2014, the date of the most recent merit decision to the filing of this 

appeal, 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 appellant’s claim.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for further merit review 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted evidence with her appeal to the Board. The Board cannot consider this 

evidence as its jurisdiction is limited to the evidence that was before OWCP at the time it issued its final decision. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

On appeal appellant asserts that the record establishes that she sustained an employmentrelated emotional condition. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On November 4, 2013 appellant, then a 60-year-old supervisor in the travel department, 

filed an occupational disease claim alleging that harassment and bullying by employing 

establishment management caused a panic disorder, stress, and depression. In an attached 

statement, she claimed that she first became aware of the conditions on or about May 2012 and 

the relationship to employment on August 14, 2013. On August 19, 2013 appellant stopped 

work. She stated that a number of supervisors in the travel department harassed and bullied her. 

Appellant specifically, stated that she was improperly reprimanded, improperly placed on a 

performance improvement plan, that a contract was improperly discontinued, that an audit was 

improperly done, and that she did not receive proper assistance in filing her claim. 

In an October 21, 2013 report, Lillian S. Goertzel, Ph.D., advised that appellant required 

a leave of absence until at least November 30, 2013. On December 24, 2013 she advised that 

appellant was seen for outpatient psychotherapy and required a continued leave of absence until 

at least January 31, 2014. 

In letters dated January 10, 2014, OWCP informed appellant of the evidence needed to 

support her claim and asked the employing establishment to respond. 

In a February 8, 2014 report, Dr. Goertzel reported that appellant had attended a number 

of psychotherapy sessions beginning on May 14, 2013 with diagnoses of panic disorder and 

major depressive disorder. She indicated that appellant had described a number of events of 

mistreatment at work which caused her psychological diagnosis. 

Appellant submitted a February 17, 2014 statement in which she described her job duties. 

She alleged that there was an overwhelming workload created by staffing shortages and minimal 

assistance from her managers, which led to increased stress. Appellant stated that she dealt with 

constant bullying and harassment and was threatened with removal from her supervisory 

position, and reiterated her description of events and concerns, with more detail, as compared to 

her prior statement. She related that she had prior stress conditions in 1993 and 2003 when she 

was a victim of reprisal for filing Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaints. 

Appellant also submitted a number of reports from physicians at Penn Medicine. These included 

a treatment note dated May 31, 2012 in which Dr. Carol Chou, a Board-certified internist, 

reported that appellant’s job stress began in 2006. Dr. Chou diagnosed stress reaction. On 

May 24, 2014 Dr. Michelle Hu, Board-certified in internal medicine, noted appellant’s 

complaints of stress and depression. She diagnosed depressive disorder and noted that appellant 

was seeing a psychologist. 

The employing establishment submitted statements from Jeffrey C. Vollum and Syvonne 

Carter, both of whom countered each of appellant’s allegations with specific explanations. 

By decision dated July 16, 2014, OWCP found that appellant had not established a 

compensable factor of employment and denied her claim. It further found that, even had she 
3

established a compensable employment factor, the medical evidence of record was insufficient to 

establish causal relationship. 

On August 13, 2014 appellant faxed a reconsideration request to OWCP, stating that 

additional information to support her request would be forthcoming. On an attached appeal 

request form, she checked that she was requesting reconsideration. 

In a nonmerit decision dated September 12, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s 

reconsideration request. It noted that she submitted no evidence or argument to support her 

request. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8128(a) of FECA vests OWCP with discretionary authority to determine whether 

it will review an award for or against compensation, either under its own authority or on 

application by a claimant.3

 Section 10.608(a) of OWCP’s regulations provides that a timely 

request for reconsideration may be granted if OWCP determines that the employee has presented 

evidence and/or argument that meets at least one of the standards described in section 

10.606(b)(3).4 This section provides that the application for reconsideration must be submitted 

in writing and set forth arguments and contain evidence that either: (i) shows that OWCP 

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

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

previously considered by OWCP.5 Section 10.608(b) provides that when a request for 

reconsideration is timely but fails to meet at least one of these three requirements, OWCP will 

deny the application for reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on the merits.6

ANALYSIS 

The only decision before the Board in this appeal is the nonmerit decision of OWCP 

dated September 12, 2014 denying appellant’s application for review. Because there is no 

OWCP merit decision within the Board’s jurisdiction, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review the 

merits of her claim.7 

The Board finds that, as appellant did not assert that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted the law or advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP, 

she was not entitled to a review of the merits of her claim based on the first and second 

above-noted requirements under section 10.606(b)(3).8 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(a). 

5 Id. at § 10.608(b)(1) and (2). 

6 Id. at § 10.608(b). 

7 Id. at § 501.3(e). 

8 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3); see R.M., 59 ECAB 690 (2008). 
4

With respect to the third above-noted requirement under section 10.606(b)(2), appellant 

submitted no additional evidence. 

As appellant did not show that OWCP erred in applying a point of law, advance a 

relevant legal argument not previously considered, or submit relevant and pertinent new 

evidence not previously considered by OWCP, it properly denied her reconsideration request. 

CONCLUSION 

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

consideration of the merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 12, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: August 6, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board