United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, HEALTH & 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, 

Pittsburgh, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0876 

Issued: July 16, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 13, 2015 appellant timely appealed the October 3, 2014 nonmerit decision of 

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

the last merit decision of September 5, 2013, to the filing of the current 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 this claim. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly declined to reopen appellant’s case for merit review 

under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193 (2006). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

Appellant, a 61-year-old retired health and resource management (HRM) manager, has an 

accepted claim for temporary aggravation of major depressive disorder, temporary aggravation 

of hypertension, and temporary aggravation of generalized anxiety disorder, which arose on or 

about May 1, 2006.2

 By decision dated August 14, 2012, OWCP determined that appellant’s 

accepted emotional/psychiatric conditions had resolved as of July 23, 2012.3

 Appellant was also 

diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but, OWCP has not accepted her PTSD as 

employment related. Appellant remains eligible for wage-loss or medical benefits with respect 

to her employment-related hypertension. 

Appellant timely requested reconsideration of OWCP’s August 14, 2012 decision. Her 

primary argument was that OWCP had not adequately addressed her PTSD. Appellant submitted 

a May 17, 2013 report from Dr. Hayne D. McMeekin, a Board-certified psychiatrist, who 

diagnosed PTSD and advised that appellant was currently unable to work. OWCP also received 

a May 8, 2013 report from Dr. Edwin A. Avbuere, a Board-certified internist, who diagnosed 

hypertension and anxiety.4

 Dr. Avbuere indicated that appellant was unable to work under any 

stressful conditions as this would likely aggravate her conditions and undermine her 

performance. 

In a September 5, 2013 decision, OWCP reviewed the merits of the claim, but denied 

modification of its August 14, 2012 decision. 

By letter dated September 4, 2014, received by OWCP on September 5, 2014, appellant 

requested reconsideration. She submitted a July 31, 2014 report from her psychiatrist, 

Dr. McMeekin. Dr. McMeekin diagnosed PTSD and advised that appellant responded to 

medication, but this had not restored her to full function. He further noted that appellant 

remained impaired with respect to her ability to deal with minimal stress, such as that which 

occurs during normal work. Dr. McMeekin explained that this type of stress would be expected 

to cause increased anxiety, insomnia, and difficulty making decisions. In conclusion, he stated 

that it was his professional opinion that appellant was not able to work at this time. 

In an October 3, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration, 

and thus, did not review the merits of her claim. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8128(a) of FECA does not entitle a claimant to review of an OWCP decision as a 

matter of right.5 OWCP has discretionary authority in this regard and has imposed certain 

 2

 Appellant stopped work on June 24, 2008, and retired effective November 1, 2008. 

3

 OWCP based its decision on the June 23 and July 26, 2012 reports of Dr. Gerald M. Aronoff, a Board-certified 

psychiatrist and impartial medical examiner (IME). 

4

 Dr. Avbuere previously served as an OWCP referral (second opinion) physician. 

5

 This section provides in pertinent part: “[t]he Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against payment 

of compensation at any time on his own motion or on application.” 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 
3

limitations in exercising its authority.6

 One such limitation is that the application for 

reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of the decision for which 

review is sought.7

 A timely application for reconsideration, including all supporting documents, 

must 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.8 When a timely application for reconsideration does not meet 

at least one of the above-noted requirements, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration 

without reopening the case for a review on the merits.9

ANALYSIS 

OWCP received appellant’s most recent request for reconsideration on 

September 5, 2014. In her request dated September 4, 2014, appellant discussed various medical 

reports from Dr. Avbuere and Dr. Aronoff (IME), and questioned the reliability of Dr. Aronoff’s 

findings regarding her current emotional/psychiatric condition. She also argued that Dr. Aronoff 

failed to address Dr. McMeekin’s diagnosis of PTSD. Appellant raised the same or similar 

arguments in her previous request for reconsideration dated June 14, 2013. 

The Board finds that appellant’s latest request for reconsideration neither alleged nor 

demonstrated that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law. 

Additionally, appellant did not advance any relevant legal arguments not previously considered 

by OWCP. Accordingly, she is not entitled to a review of the merits based on the first and 

second requirements under section 10.606(b)(2).10

Appellant also failed to submit any “relevant and pertinent new evidence” with her most 

recent request for reconsideration. Dr. McMeekin’s July 31, 2014 report is a verbatim reiteration 

of his May 17, 2013 report, which appellant submitted with her prior request for reconsideration. 

OWCP noted that Dr. McMeekin’s latest report was similar to evidence already in the record 

and, therefore, cumulative and immaterial. Providing additional evidence that repeats or 

duplicates information already in the record does not constitute a basis for reopening a claim.11 

Consequently, Dr. McMeekin’s July 31, 2014 report is insufficient to warrant further merit 

 6

 20 C.F.R. § 10.607 (2014). 

7 Id. at § 10.607(a). The one-year period begins on the date of the original decision, and an application for 

reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought for 

merit decisions issued on or after August 29, 2011. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, 

Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 (October 2011). Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date of the 

request for reconsideration as indicated by the “received date” in the Integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation 

System (iFECS). Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4b. 

8

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2). 

9 Id. at §§ 10.607(b), 10.608(b). 

10 Id. at § 10.606(b)(2)(i) and (ii). 

11 James W. Scott, 55 ECAB 606, 608 n.4 (2004). 
4

review. Because appellant did not provide any “relevant and pertinent new evidence,” she is not 

entitled to a review of the merits based on the third requirement under section 10.606(b)(2).12 

Accordingly, OWCP properly declined to reopen appellant’s case under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied further merit review with respect to 

appellant’s September 4, 2014 request for reconsideration. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 3, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 16, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 12 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2)(iii).