United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.W., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Chattanooga, TN, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1073 

Issued: September 15, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 7, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from the February 26, 

2014 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), which 

denied her reconsideration request. Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction to review this nonmerit 

decision. 

ISSUE 

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

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On the prior appeal,2 the Board found that appellant had not met her burden of proof to 

establish that her medical condition was causally related to the July 6, 2012 work incident.3

 

Dr. Peter J. Lund, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, found appellant’s clinical presentation 

did not seem consistent with the mechanism of injury. He concluded that it was not clear that 

there could be a relationship between what happened on July 6, 2012 and the changes seen on 

x-ray. As no physician offered a well-reasoned opinion as to whether the July 6, 2012 work 

incident caused a diagnosed medical condition, the Board affirmed OWCP’s September 4, 2012 

decision to deny appellant’s injury claim. The Board also found that OWCP properly denied 

appellant’s October 10, 2012 reconsideration request. The facts of this case as set forth in the 

Board’s May 22, 2013 decision are hereby incorporated by reference. 

While the case was on appeal to the Board, appellant’s counsel requested reconsideration 

by OWCP. He resubmitted a copy of Dr. Lund’s August 1, 2012 report, which the Board had 

reviewed on appeal. 

Following the issuance of the Board’s May 22, 2013 decision and order, appellant’s 

counsel asked OWCP to proceed with the previously submitted reconsideration request. It 

received this request on February 7, 2014. 

In a decision dated February 26, 2014, OWCP denied a merit review of appellant’s case. 

It found that the evidence submitted was repetitious and irrelevant. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

own motion or upon application.4 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.5

Evidence that repeats or duplicates evidence already in the record has no evidentiary 

value and constitutes no basis for reopening a case.6

 2

 Docket No. 13-435 (issued May 22, 2013). 

3

 Appellant, a 50-year-old mail processing clerk, filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that she injured her right 

shoulder on July 6, 2012 while pulling a tray with her right arm from the top of a bun warmer for dispatch. “Felt 

pain in right shoulder lost control of tray. Used left arm to catch tray and balance it, felt pain in left elbow.” 

4

 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606. 

6 Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393 (1984); Bruce E. Martin, 35 ECAB 1090 (1984). 
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.7

 The one-year period begins on the date of the 

original decision; however, a right to reconsideration within one year accompanies any 

subsequent merit decision. This includes any decision after a hearing or review of the written 

record, any denial of modification following a reconsideration, any merit decision by the Board, 

and any merit decision following a remand from the Branch of Hearings and Review or the 

Board, but does not include prerecoupment hearing decisions.8

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 the standards for review. 

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 standards, OWCP will deny the request 

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

ANALYSIS 

While the Board had jurisdiction of this case on the prior appeal, appellant’s counsel 

requested that OWCP reconsider the merits. It is well established, however, that the Board and 

OWCP may not exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the same issue. Any action by OWCP that 

can disturb the status of the case as appealed from must necessarily be regarded as a nullity; 

otherwise, the orderly appeal process breaks down.10 Accordingly, the reconsideration request 

that appellant submitted to OWCP during her appeal to the Board was not ripe for want of 

jurisdiction. 

Following the appeal, appellant’s representative asked OWCP to proceed with 

reconsideration. OWCP received this request on February 7, 2014. As this receipt was within 

one year of the most recent merit decision in the case, namely, the May 22, 2013 Board decision, 

the request was timely. The question for determination, therefore, is whether appellant’s request 

meets at least one of the three standards for obtaining a merit review of her 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 appellant only resubmitted a copy of the 

August 1, 2012 report from Dr. Lund, the orthopedic surgeon. The Board reviewed this evidence 

on the prior appeal and found that it did not establish the element of causal relationship. The 

Board has held that evidence that repeats or duplicates that already in the record has no 

evidentiary value and constitutes no basis for reopening a case. 

 7

 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a). 

8

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4.a (October 2011). 

9 Id. at § 10.608. 

10 Douglas E. Billings, 41 ECAB 880 (1990), citing George H. Thamer, 2 ECAB 88 (1948). 
4

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

for reopening her case, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied a merit review. The Board 

will therefore affirm OWCP’s February 26, 2014 decision. 

CONCLUSION 

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

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 26, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 15, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board