United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.M., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

Holtsville, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1010 

Issued: September 19, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas S. Harkins, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 27, 2014 appellant, through her attorney, filed a timely appeal of an 

October 8, 2013 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) which 

denied her request for reconsideration without conducting a merit review. Because more than 

180 days has elapsed since the most recent merit decision dated August 14, 2012 to the filing of 

this appeal on March 27, 2014, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of the claim 

pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

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

501.3. 

ISSUE 

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

under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 19, 2012 appellant, then a 52-year-old accounts manager, filed an occupational 

disease claim alleging that she developed neck and arm pain and cervical radiculopathy due to 

prolonged sitting at a desk and working on a computer. She became aware of her condition on 

December 12, 2011 and realized it was causally related to her work on December 21, 2011. 

On May 17, 2012 OWCP advised appellant of the evidence needed to establish her claim. 

It requested that she submit a physician’s reasoned opinion addressing the causal relationship of 

her claimed condition to the implicated work factors. 

Appellant submitted a February 17, 2012 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the 

cervical spine. It revealed a broad-based disc osteophyte complex at C4-5 flattening the anterior 

aspect of the cervical cord, right neural foraminal narrowing at C5-6 and C6-7 and a disc 

protrusion at C5-6. Appellant submitted a June 13, 2012 report from Dr. Vishnu Seodat, a 

Board-certified family practitioner, who treated her for right thumb pain, numbness, tingling, 

tenosynovitis, cervical radiculopathy and right upper extremity pain. Dr. Seodat noted an 

electromyogram (EMG) revealed right mid-to-lower cervical radiculopathy for which she 

underwent cervical steroid injections. He advised that appellant was unable to work and 

struggled performing activities of daily living. Dr. Seodat noted her right upper extremity pain 

continued due to her job which consisted of continuous typing and computer use. 

Appellant was also treated for neck and right arm pain by Dr. Sathish Subbaiah, a Boardcertified neurologist, on July 24, 2012. She reported her job required computer work and during 

December, she experienced moderate-to-severe right neck and upper arm pain with numbness. 

Dr. Seodat diagnosed cervical radiculopathy, cervical strain and cervicalgia. He noted 

conservative treatment failed and recommended surgery. 

In a decision dated August 14, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It accepted the 

work activities alleged but found that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish that her 

cervical condition was casually related to work events. 

On August 2, 2013 appellant, through her attorney, requested reconsideration. She 

asserted that she provided rationalized medical evidence to support that she sustained a 

work-related cervical condition. Appellant submitted a February 17, 2012 cervical spine MRI 

scan report, a June 13, 2012 report from Dr. Seodat and a July 24, 2012 report from 

Dr. Subbaiah, all previously of record. A January 27, 2012 EMG revealed mild, active mid-tolower cervical radiculopathy. Appellant submitted a November 28, 2012 report from a 

physician’s assistant, who treated her for radiating neck pain. Dr. Seodat diagnosed cervical 

radiculopathy, cervical strain, cervicalgia, cervical disc displacement and lumbar herniated disc. 

In a March 19, 2012 report, Dr. Seodat Dr. Jonathan Raanan, a Board-certified 

physiatrist, treated appellant for neck, shoulder and arm pain. Appellant reported that symptoms 

began in December 2011 without any inciting event but which were aggravated by prolonged 

driving, working at a computer, picking up objects and repetitive movement. Dr. Raanan noted 

limited range of motion of the cervical spine, tenderness of the paraspinal muscles bilaterally, 

intact sensation in the upper extremities except for the right thumb, intact strength and equal and 
3

symmetrical reflexes in the upper extremities. He noted findings of an MRI scan of the cervical 

spine and an EMG. Dr. Raanan diagnosed cervicalgia with radicular right arm symptoms, 

multilevel cervical spondylosis and disc herniations causing foraminal stenosis at C5-6. He 

recommended epidural steroid injections. On April 2, 2012 Dr. Raanan provided a right C7-T1 

interlaminar epidural steroid injection and diagnosed cervical disc herniation. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. Subbaiah on January 8, 2013 for radiating neck and arm 

pain. She reported worsening pain in the cervical spine and right arm when working. 

Dr. Subbaiah noted diminished sensation in the C6-7 distribution limited range of motion of the 

neck with pain. He diagnosed cervical radiculopathy, cervical strain, cervicalgia, cervical disc 

displacement and lumbar herniated disc and recommended epidural steroid injections and 

physical therapy. 

On January 16, 2013 appellant was treated by Dr. Vlada Frankenberger, an osteopath, for 

neck pain radiating into the bilateral upper extremities. She reported experiencing no trauma to 

the area but noted her condition worsened since 2012. Dr. Frankenberger noted findings on 

examination of tenderness of the cervical and lumbar paraspinals, trapezius, supraspinatus and 

trigger points with sensory diminished at C5 dermatomal distribution. He diagnosed cervical 

radiculopathy, cervical disc displacement, myalgia and myositis and cervical spondylosis and 

recommended additional cervical epidural steroid injections. 

In an October 8, 2013 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration on 

the grounds that the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant further merit review. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Under section 8128(a) of FECA,2 OWCP has the discretion to reopen a case for review 

on the merits. It must exercise this discretion in accordance with the guidelines set forth in 

section 10.606(b)(2) of the implementing federal regulations, which provides that a claimant may 

obtain review of the merits of his or her written application for reconsideration, including all 

supporting documents, sets forth arguments and contain evidence that: 

“(1) Shows that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; 

or 

“(2) Advances a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP; or 

“(3) Constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by 

OWCP.”3

 2 Id. at § 8128(a). 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2). 
4

Section 10.608(b) provides that any application for review of the merits of the claim 

which does not meet at least one of the requirements listed in section 10.606(b) will be denied by 

OWCP without review of the merits of the claim.4

ANALYSIS 

OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an occupational disease on the grounds that the 

medical evidence was insufficient to establish that her claimed conditions were casually related 

to work events. Thereafter, it denied her reconsideration request, without a merit review. 

The issue presented on appeal is whether appellant met any of the requirements of 

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2), requiring OWCP to reopen the case for review of the merits of the 

claim. In her request for reconsideration, appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied 

or interpreted a specific point of law. In her August 2, 2013 statement, she asserts that she 

provided rationalized medical evidence to support that she sustained a work-related cervical 

condition causally related to her employment duties including sitting at a desk, working on a 

computer and answering telephone calls. Appellant’s contention did not identify a legal error by 

OWCP nor is it a new and relevant legal argument. The underlying issue in this case is whether 

her diagnosed cervical condition was causally related to her work duties. That is a medical issue 

which must be addressed by relevant new medical evidence.5

Appellant submitted an MRI scan of the cervical spine dated February 17, 2012, a report 

from Dr. Seodat dated June 13, 2012 and a report from Dr. Subbaiah dated July 24, 2012. 

However, these reports are duplicative of evidence previously submitted and considered by 

OWCP in its August 14, 2012 decision. The Board has held evidence that repeats or duplicates 

that already in the case record has no evidentiary value and does not constitute a basis for 

reopening a case.6 Therefore, these reports are insufficient to require OWCP to reopen the claim 

for a merit review. 

Appellant submitted a March 19, 2012 report from Dr. Raanan who treated her for neck, 

shoulder and arm pain. Dr. Raanan listed diagnoses and advised that her reported symptoms 

began in December 2011 without any inciting event but were aggravated with prolonged driving, 

working at a computer, picking up objects and repetitive movement. On April 2, 2012 he 

performed a right C7-T1 interlaminar epidural steroid injection and diagnosed cervical disc 

herniation. However, these reports are not relevant because Dr. Raanan did not address the issue 

of causal relationship. He did not state whether appellant developed a work-related cervical 

condition or provide any specific opinion on whether her work factors caused or contributed to 

 4 Id. at § 10.608(b). 

5 See Bobbie F. Cowart, 55 ECAB 746 (2004). 

6 See Daniel Deparini, 44 ECAB 657 (1993); Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984); Bruce E. Martin, 35 

ECAB 1090, 1093-94 (1984). 
5

the diagnosed medical condition.7

 Therefore, this evidence is not relevant and is insufficient to 

warrant reopening the case for a merit review. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. Subbaiah on January 8, 2013. Dr. Subbaiah reported 

worsening pain in the cervical spine and right arm when working. He diagnosed cervical 

radiculopathy, cervical strain, cervicalgia, cervical disc displacement and lumbar herniated disc 

and recommended epidural steroid injections and physical therapy. In a January 16, 2013 report, 

Dr. Frankenberger noted that appellant experienced no trauma to the area but noted her condition 

worsened since 2012. He diagnosed cervical radiculopathy, cervical disc displacement, myalgia 

and myositis and cervical spondylosis and recommended additional cervical epidural steroid 

injections. A January 27, 2012 EMG showed mild, active mid-to-lower cervical radiculopathy. 

Although these reports are new, they are not relevant because neither Dr. Subbaiah nor 

Dr. Frakenberger addressed whether appellant developed a cervical condition causally related to 

her employment duties. Although Drs. Subbaiah and Frankenberger noted appellant’s 

symptoms, they did not provide any opinion on whether appellant developed a cervical condition 

causally related to her account manager duties. Therefore, this evidence is not relevant and is 

insufficient to warrant reopening the case for a merit review. 

Appellant submitted a November 28, 2012 report from a physician’s assistant. However, 

this evidence is of no probative medical value as the Board has held that a physician’s assistant is 

not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA.8

 Thus, this evidence is not relevant 

since the underlying issue is medical in nature. 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(2). Appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific 

point of law, advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP or submit 

relevant and pertinent evidence not previously considered. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, 

OWCP properly denied merit review. 

On appeal, appellant through counsel asserts that she submitted sufficient evidence to 

establish that she developed a cervical condition causally related to her employment duties and 

that OWCP improperly denied her reconsideration request. As noted, the Board does not have 

jurisdiction to review the merits of the claim. Appellant did not submit any evidence or 

argument in support of her reconsideration request that warrants reopening of her claim for a 

merit review under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2). 

CONCLUSION 

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

 7 See C.N., Docket No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008) (evidence that does not address the particular issue 

involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case). 

8 See S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009); 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 8, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 19, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board