United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.W., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE, 

Blakely, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1137 

Issued: December 19, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 4, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 15, 2016 nonmerit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction over this case. 

ISSUE 

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

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

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case was previously before the Board.2 The facts and circumstances as outlined in 

the prior Board decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are set forth 

below. 

On March 5, 2014 appellant, then a 50-year-old physical science technician, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed carpal tunnel syndrome 

causally related to factors of his federal employment. Following the initial denial by OWCP of 

his claim on April 10, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed this decision on 

January 27, 2015. Appellant appealed to the Board on March 13, 2015. 

In a decision dated August 21, 2015, the Board affirmed the January 27, 2015 decision of 

OWCP’s hearing representative, finding that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to 

establish an occupational disease causally related to factors of his federal employment.3 

Upon return of the case record to OWCP, appellant resubmitted a July 25, 2014 report by 

Dr. David Rehak, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon specializing in hand surgery, wherein he 

had discussed proposed surgery with appellant, his findings on examination, and the job duties as 

related by appellant. Dr. Rehak had opined that, if the job duties described by appellant as lifting 

50-pound bags, preparing samples, and manually squeezing a pneumatic device were accurate, 

then these duties could have caused or exacerbated appellant’s bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. 

On January 6, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration and indicated that his job 

description and pictures showed the type of work he did on a daily basis for 40 hours per week. 

He advised that he spoke with OWCP on December 29, 2015 about sending evidence from his 

doctor’s office. 

In a January 15, 2016 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s reconsideration request. It 

explained that he had not provided pertinent, new evidence sufficient to warrant a merit review. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

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 its decision 

denying or terminating a benefit, a claimant’s application for review must be received within one 

 2

 Docket No. 15-0881(issued August 21, 2015). 

3 Id. 

4

 Supra note 1. 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). 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 
3

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 

In a January 27, 2015 merit decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because the 

evidence of record did not establish that the diagnosed condition was causally related to factors 

of his federal employment. Appellant submitted a timely request for reconsideration received by 

OWCP on January 6, 2016, which was denied without a merit review. 

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

underlying issue in this case is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish that factors 

of his federal employment caused the diagnosed condition. This is a medical issue. OWCP’s 

prior decisions and the Board’s prior decision that the medical evidence was insufficient to 

establish his claim. In support of his reconsideration request, appellant resubmitted a July 25, 

2014 report from Dr. Rehak, but this report does not constitute relevant and pertinent new 

evidence. The Board has held that evidence or argument that repeats or duplicates evidence 

previously of record has no evidentiary value and does not constitute a basis for reopening a 

case.8

 

Furthermore, appellant’s reconsideration request neither showed that OWCP erroneously 

applied or interpreted a specific point of law, nor advanced a relevant legal argument not 

previously considered by OWCP. Because he failed to meet one of the criteria enumerated under 

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3), appellant was not entitled to further merit review of his claim. 

CONCLUSION 

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

reconsideration of the merits of his claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 6 Id. at § 10.607(a). 

7 Id. at § 10.608(b). 

8 J.P., 58 ECAB 289 (2007). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 15, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: December 19, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board