United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.E., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. SECRET SERVICE, Washington, DC, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-242 

Issued: April 2, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 12, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 2, 2014 nonmerit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), denying his request for 

reconsideration. As more than 180 days elapsed between the last merit decision dated May 2, 

2014 and the filing of this appeal, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of appellant’s 

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 as it 

was untimely and did not demonstrate clear evidence of error. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 6, 2014 appellant, a 28-year-old officer technician, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging that he sustained an injury in the performance of duty that day while manipulating 

his police motorcycle around a left-hand turn. He felt a twinge in his left forearm causing pain 

up into his shoulder. 

In a decision dated May 2, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that the 

March 6, 2014 work incident occurred as alleged, but the medical evidence did not substantiate 

that the diagnoses of bicipital tendinitis, lateral epicondylitis, and nontraumatic rupture of the 

biceps tendon were caused or aggravated by the work incident. 

On July 21, 2014 OWCP received appellant’s appeal request form indicating that he was 

requesting reconsideration. Appellant attached a copy of OWCP’s May 2, 2014 decision. 

In a decision dated October 2, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s request to reopen his case 

for a merit review. It found that his request neither raised substantive legal question nor included 

new and relevant evidence. 

On appeal, appellant states that, after OWCP denied his claim on May 2, 2014, he 

submitted supplemental paperwork from his physician on June 6, 2014 explaining how he 

injured his arm on the job. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

OWCP may review an award for or against payment of compensation at any time on its 

own motion or upon application.2 An employee (or representative) seeking reconsideration 

should send the request for reconsideration to the address as instructed by OWCP in the final 

decision. The request for reconsideration, including all supporting documents, must be in 

writing and must set forth arguments and contain evidence that either: (1) shows that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (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

A request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of 

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.4

 A timely request for reconsideration may be 

granted if OWCP determines that the employee has presented evidence or argument that meets at 

least one of these standards. If reconsideration is granted, the case is reopened and the case is 

reviewed on its merits. Where the request is timely but fails to meet at least one of these 

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606. 

4 Id. at § 10.607(a). 
3

standards, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without reopening the case for a 

review on the merits.5

ANALYSIS 

OWCP received appellant’s reconsideration request within one calendar year of the most 

recent merit decision in his case, namely, its May 2, 2014 decision denying his traumatic injury 

claim. Appellant’s request is therefore timely. The question for determination is whether that 

request met at least one of the standards for obtaining a merit review of his case. 

Appellant’s request did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific 

point of law. The request did not advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered 

by OWCP. A claimant may be entitled to a merit review by submitting relevant and pertinent 

new evidence not previously considered by OWCP, but OWCP received no evidence supporting 

his request. 

Appellant informs the Board that he did, in fact, submit supplemental paperwork from his 

physician on the issue of causal relationship, but the record does not show that OWCP received 

this evidence. The record shows, however, only that OWCP received his appeal request form 

and the attached copy of its May 2, 2014 initial decision. 

Accordingly, as appellant’s reconsideration request did not meet any of the standards for 

reopening his case, the Board finds that he is not entitled to a merit review. The Board will 

therefore affirm OWCP’s October 2, 2014 decision denying his request. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant’s reconsideration request did not meet at least one of the 

standards for obtaining a merit review of his case. Thus, OWCP properly declined to reopen his 

case for further consideration of the merits of his claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 5 Id. at § 10.608. 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 2, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: April 2, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board