United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.D., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

WEST LOS ANGELES VETERANS 

ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, 

Los Angeles, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0953 

Issued: July 17, 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 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 19, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 23, 2014 nonmerit 

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

elapsed between the last merit decision of OWCP dated June 25, 2013, 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 to review the merits of this case.2

On appeal, appellant contends that OWCP refused to reconsider her claim. She had 

issues with Dr. Priti R. Sahgal, an attending psychiatrist, who sent four reports to OWCP that did 

not contain all of the requested information. When appellant did not receive a timely fifth report 

from Dr. Sahgal regarding causal relationship she requested that OWCP authorize a change of 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2 See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e). 
2

attending physician. She then submitted a report from another/a new attending physician and 

contended that this evidence was sufficient to establish her claim.3 

ISSUE 

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

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

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 4, 2010 appellant, then a 51-year-old management and program analyst, filed 

an occupational disease claim alleging that on March 9, 2010 she first realized that her stress, 

panic attacks, heart issues, headaches, dizziness, depression, anxiety, shoulder pain, grinding 

teeth, increased periodontal disease, and swollen ankles and feet were caused by her federal 

employment. She stated that, since 2000, she had been the sole supervisor of 25 employees and 

6 compensated work therapy (CWT) patients. Appellant was the only management official 

responsible for daily transportation operations of the employing establishment’s five-county 

service area and maintenance, service, assignment, and accidents for over 3,000 vehicles. She 

also ensured that over 300 employees who drove patients or were required to drive as part of 

their job had good driving records and passed a physical and written examination. 

Appellant submitted factual evidence in support of her claim. In narrative statements, she 

described the incidents and conditions at work which she believed caused her physical and 

emotional conditions. Appellant submitted medical evidence which addressed her physical and 

emotional conditions, and work capacity. 

In a February 7, 2011 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that she failed 

to establish any compensable employment factors. 

On March 4, 2011 appellant requested a telephone hearing with an OWCP hearing 

representative and submitted additional factual and medical evidence. 

In an April 18, 2011 decision, an OWCP hearing representative set aside the February 7, 

2011 decision and remanded the case for further development. He directed OWCP to obtain 

further information from the employing establishment about appellant’s claimed work factors, 

including her claim that she frequently worked 10 to 12 hours a day and prepared reports after 

hours to meet the requirements of her position, that she encountered problems with daily 

operation of bus service, and that she had to deal with difficult employees under her supervision. 

In a June 28, 2011 letter, the employing establishment stated that appellant was not 

required to work 10 to 12 hours. Appellant did encounter frequent issues involving bus service 

operation. She also had to deal with difficult employees. 

By decision dated August 16, 2011, OWCP found that appellant had established 26 

compensable factors of employment. It denied her claim, finding that the medical evidence did 

 3

 The Board has no jurisdiction to review new evidence on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
3

not establish that she had a medical condition in connection to any of the compensable factors of 

employment. 

On September 12, 2011 and March 18, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration and 

submitted factual and medical evidence. In decisions dated April 3, 2012 and June 25, 2013, 

respectively, OWCP denied modification of its decision after conducting a merit review. It 

found that the medical evidence did not establish that appellant’s medical conditions were 

causally related to the accepted employment factors. 

By letter dated June 19, 2014, appellant requested reconsideration. She stated that her 

request was accompanied by a letter from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) which 

approved her disability retirement. Appellant noted that her depression caused by job events was 

one of the reasons for the approval. She stated that a letter from the Social Security 

Administration (SSA), which denied her claim for disability benefits, also accompanied her 

reconsideration request.4

 Appellant related that a letter from her psychiatrist, which would arrive 

under separate cover, included the causal relationship between her health and job issues. 

In an August 6, 2014 letter, appellant requested that OWCP authorize a change of 

physician from Dr. Sahgal because she had taken too long to provide evidence explaining causal 

relationship as requested by OWCP. On several occasions, commencing in August 2013, she 

asked Dr. Sahgal for the evidence and was told that it was forthcoming. Appellant requested that 

OWCP accept the report from Dr. Sahgal if she submitted it by August 31, 2014. She also 

requested time to undergo an evaluation by a new psychiatrist who could review Dr. Sahgal’s 

notes and reports, and provide an opinion on causal relationship. 

In a September 23, 2014 decision, OWCP denied merit review of appellant’s claim. It 

found that the evidence submitted did not support that it had erroneously applied or interpreted a 

point of law or contain a relevant legal argument not previously considered. OWCP further 

found that the evidence submitted was irrelevant or immaterial. It noted that medical evidence 

from Dr. Sahgal had not been received. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128 of FECA,5

OWCP’s regulations provide that 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.6

 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.7

 Section 10.608(b) of the implementing regulations state that any 

 4

 The Board notes that the accompanying evidence from OPM and SSA is not contained in the record. 

5

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

6

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

7 Id. at § 10.607(a). 
4

application for review that does not meet at least one of the requirements listed in 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3) will be denied by OWCP without review of the merits of the claim.8

ANALYSIS 

On June 19, 2014 appellant disagreed with OWCP’s June 25, 2013 decision that she did 

not sustain an injury because the medical evidence of record did not establish that the claimed 

conditions were causally related to her accepted employment factors. She requested 

reconsideration. The underlying issue on reconsideration is medical in nature. 

The Board finds that appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or 

misinterpreted a specific point of law. Moreover, appellant did not advance a relevant legal 

argument not previously considered. 

The Board further finds that appellant did not submit relevant or pertinent new evidence 

not previously considered. In an August 6, 2014 letter, appellant requested that OWCP authorize 

a change of physician because Dr. Sahgal had failed to provide reports explaining causal 

relationship as requested by herself and OWCP. She also requested that OWCP accept 

Dr. Sahgal’s report if it was submitted by a certain date and that she be allowed to undergo 

further evaluation by a new psychiatrist. Because the underlying issue is medical in nature, 

appellant’s letter is not relevant. She merely explained the delay in submitting medical evidence 

to establish causal relationship and reported that she needed further evaluation by a new 

physician. No medical evidence accompanied her reconsideration request. The Board has held 

that the submission of evidence which does not address the particular issue involved in the case 

does not constitute a basis for reopening the claim.9

 The Board finds, therefore, that appellant’s 

August 6, 2014 letter is insufficient to reopen her claim for a merit review. 

The Board accordingly finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 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 

constitute relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by OWCP. Pursuant to 

20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review. 

On appeal, appellant contends that OWCP refused to reconsider her claim. Dr. Sahgal 

sent four reports to OWCP that did not contain all of the requested information. Appellant stated 

that when she did not receive a timely fifth report from Dr. Sahgal regarding causal relationship 

she requested that OWCP authorize a change of attending physician. As discussed above, her 

delay in submitting medical evidence from Dr. Sahgal and need to undergo further evaluation by 

a new physician are not pertinent to the underlying issue in this appeal, i.e., as to whether her 

claimed conditions were causally related to the accepted employment factors, which is medical 

in nature. 

 8 Id. at § 10.608(b); see also Norman W. Hanson, 45 ECAB 430 (1994). 

9 D’Wayne Avila, 57 ECAB 642 (2006). 
5

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for further merit review 

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

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 23, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 17, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board