United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

E.Z., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Pittsburgh, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-46 

Issued: February 12, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 6, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from the 

September 9, 2014 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

(OWCP) denying his request for reconsideration. The most recent merit decision was the 

May 14, 2014 decision of the Board, which became final after 30 days of issuance and is not 

subject to further review. The Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of appellant’s case, 

pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c), 

501.3 and 501.6(d). 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly refused to reopen appellant’s claim for merit 

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

On appeal, appellant, through counsel, contends that the decision is contrary to fact and 

law. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board.2 On the most recent appeal the Board, in 

a May 14, 2014 decision, found that appellant had not met his burden of proof to establish that he 

sustained cubital tunnel syndrome in the performance of duty causally related to factors of his 

federal employment.3

 The facts of the previous Board decision are incorporated herein by 

reference. 

On June 19, 2014 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. In support of his 

reconsideration request, counsel submitted portions of a December 3, 2012 report by Dr. John 

Ellis, a physician Board-certified in family practice, which counsel alleged had not been 

previously considered. This report consists of a worksheet by the Ellis Clinic dated December 3, 

2012 evaluating appellant’s impairment for schedule award purposes. 

By decision dated September 9, 2014, OWCP denied reconsideration. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

OWCP 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 

As stated above, the only decision before the Board on this appeal is the nonmerit 

decision of OWCP dated September 9, 2014 denying appellant’s reconsideration request. 

 2

 On April 9, 2009 appellant, then a 39-year-old mail handler, filed an occupational disease claim attributing his 

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and decreased muscle strength in his hands to repetitive employment tasks he 

performed while sorting mail. The Board remanded the case for further development to OWCP on 

November 3, 2010. See Docket No. 10-728 (issued November 3, 2010). 

3

 Docket No. 14-309 (issued May 14, 2014). 

 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)(3). 

6 Id. at § 10.607(a). 

7 Id. at § 10.608(b). 
3

In support of his reconsideration request, appellant neither demonstrated that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law, nor did he advance a relevant legal 

argument not previously considered by OWCP. He submitted portions of a December 3, 2012 

report by Dr. Ellis dealing with a schedule award. Although appellant’s counsel stated that this 

report had not previously been submitted, the Board notes that the full December 3, 2012 

narrative report and later submitted portions dealing with a schedule award was actually received 

by OWCP on March 5, 2013. Accordingly, this report does not constitute pertinent new and 

relevant evidence. 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.8

 The Board also notes that 

the pages from the incomplete report that were submitted address appellant’s entitlement to a 

schedule award, not whether appellant sustained cubital tunnel syndrome in the performance of 

duty causally related to factors of his federal employment, which was the underlying issue in this 

case. 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 case.9

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 he did not meet any of the necessary 

requirements and is not entitled to further merit review.10

CONCLUSION 

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

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

 8 T.T., Docket No. 13-1717 (issued February 26, 2014). 

9 D.H., Docket No. 14-735 (issued June 20, 2014). 

10 See L.H., 59 ECAB 253 (2007). 
4

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated September 9, 2014 is affirmed. 

Issued: February 12, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board