United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.P., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

AGENCY, Alexandria, VA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1162 

Issued: October 10, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Molly J. Durso, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 23, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a March 12, 

2014 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying appellant’s 

request for reconsideration. Since more than 180 days have elapsed from the last merit decision 

of July 15, 2011 and 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 only has jurisdiction over the 

nonmerit decision. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly refused to reopen appellant’s case for further 

review on the merits pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

On appeal, appellant’s counsel contends that OWCP improperly found that the report by 

appellant’s physician was cumulative evidence, and that this report was sufficient to require 

merit review of appellant’s case. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board. The facts as set forth in the Board’s 

prior decision are hereby incorporated by reference.2

In a May 13, 2010 decision, OWCP terminated appellant’s benefits, finding that she no 

longer had any disability or residuals due to her accepted work condition. This decision was 

upheld by the hearing representative on December 1, 2010. Appellant subsequently requested 

reconsideration and submitted an April 6, 2011 report by Dr. John R. Chase, appellant’s treating 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who noted that he initially saw appellant in April 2007 with 

regard to her employment injury, that she underwent arthroscopic surgery in her left knee in 

December 2007, that she had an extraordinarily long and protracted postoperative recovery and 

that afterward her right knee became symptomatic. He opined that appellant still had some 

difficulty related to the residual tear of the meniscus in her right knee and needed treatment 

based upon the level of her symptoms. On July 15, 2011 OWCP conducted a merit review, but 

denied modification of its prior decision. OWCP noted that although Dr. Chase opined that 

appellant continued to have problems related to the residual tear of the meniscus in her right 

knee, Dr. Chase’s opinion was not based on current objective findings. 

In support of her subsequent requests for reconsideration, appellant submitted a June 4, 

2012 report wherein Dr. Chase indicated that his opinion had not changed, that appellant had 

underlying degenerative arthritis and a degenerative meniscal tear. Dr. Chase noted that 

appellant’s chances of benefitting from arthroscopic surgery on her right knee were quite small. 

He opined that the difficulty appellant had at that time has not changed from when he saw her 

initially in 2007. OWCP denied appellant’s requests for reconsideration in decisions dated 

January 15 and April 10, 2013, finding that they were not timely filed and failed to demonstrate 

clear evidence of error. However, the Board found the requests timely and remanded the case for 

OWCP to apply the correct standard.3

 

By decision dated March 12, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s requests for 

reconsideration. It applied the standard for timely reconsideration requests, but determined that 

the evidence presented by appellant was not sufficient to warrant merit review. 

 2

 Docket No. 13-1439 (issued December 19, 2013). On March 8, 2007 appellant, then a 41-year-old information 

management specialist, filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that, on February 20, 2007, while walking in the 

parking lot near the entrance of the employing establishment’s building, she slipped and fell to the sidewalk and 

injured both knees, her wrist, lower back, right ribs and right arm. OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for sprain of 

the lumbar region of back and bilateral knee medial meniscus tear. 

3 Id. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128(a) of FECA,4

OWCP’s regulations provide that 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.5 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.6

 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.7

 

ANALYSIS 

By decision dated May 13, 2010, OWCP terminated appellant’s benefits. It found that 

she no longer had any disability or residuals causally related to her accepted employment injury. 

The most recent merit decision in this case is OWCP’s July 15, 2011 decision denying 

modification. Thereafter, OWCP issued nonmerit decisions denying reconsideration on 

January 15 and April 10, 2013. However, the Board found those requests timely and remanded 

this case to OWCP to apply the proper standard for reconsideration.8

 In this appeal, the 

jurisdiction is restricted to reviewing OWCP’s decision denying reconsideration issued on 

March 12, 2014. The Board does not have jurisdiction over the merits of the claim.9

Appellant submitted a June 4, 2012 report from Dr. Chase, who stated that she was still 

having difficulty with her right knee. This report is duplicative of Dr. Chase’s report of April 6, 

2011, wherein he indicated that appellant had residuals to her right knee. The Board finds that 

Dr. Chase’s report is cumulative of evidence previously submitted and adjudicated.10 It is well 

established that evidence which is duplicative or cumulative in nature is insufficient to warrant 

reopening a claim for merit review.11 Dr. Chase’s 2012 report does not provide a basis to reopen 

appellant’s claim for merit review as it is duplicative of his prior reports of record.12 Therefore 

 4 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. Under section 8128 of FECA, “[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). 

5 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2). 

6 Id. at § 10.607(a). 

7 Id. at § 10.608(b). 

8 See supra note 2. 

9

 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e). 

10 T.S., Docket No. 14-255 (issued June 25, 2014). 

11 Denis M. Dupor, 51 ECAB 482 (2000). Evidence that repeats or duplicates evidence already in the case record 

has no evidentiary value and does not constitute a basis for reopening a case. Howard A. Williams, 45 ECAB 

853 (1994). 

12 See L.D., Docket No. 14-205 (issued April 7, 2014). 
4

the medical evidence submitted with appellant’s request for reconsideration is insufficient to 

reopen appellant’s case for further merit review of the merits. 

The Board finds that appellant has not shown that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law, has not advanced a relevant legal argument not previously 

considered by OWCP, and has not submitted relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously 

considered by OWCP. Accordingly, the Board finds that she did not meet any of the necessary 

requirements and is not entitled to further merit review.13

CONCLUSION 

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

review of the merits pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated March 12, 2014 is affirmed. 

Issued: October 10, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 13 See L.H., 59 ECAB 253 (2007).