United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.C., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Little Rock, AR, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0754 

Issued: August 11, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 18, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 17, 2014 

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

180 days elapsed from April 21, 2014, the date of the most recent OWCP merit decision, and 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 appellant’s 

claim.2

ISSUE 

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

without a merit review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 On appeal, appellant submitted new evidence. However, the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. 

See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 16, 2014 appellant, then a 57-year-old parcel post machine operator, filed an 

occupational disease claim alleging carpal tunnel syndrome due to the performance of duty. She 

claimed that repetitive hand motions while keying information on various machines caused her 

condition. Appellant stopped work on January 7, 2014 and returned to work on 

January 13, 2014. 

In a February 13, 2014 report, Dr. David Rhodes, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

advised that appellant worked for the employing establishment for the past 20 years and had 

been experiencing pain, numbness, and tingling in the upper extremity for the past two years 

which progressively worsened over the past month. On physical examination he noted atrophy 

in the thenar area, decreased sensation to light touch in the radial and ulnar nerve distribution, 

full range of motion of the fingers, 5/5 muscle strength, positive Phalen’s sign, positive Tinel’s 

over carpal tunnel, and no edema or erythema. Dr. Rhodes advised that right hand x-rays 

revealed radial styloid joint narrowing. He noted that a nerve conduction study of the right 

extremity would be conducted to rule out nerve impingement. 

By letter dated March 11, 2014, OWCP notified appellant that evidence was insufficient 

to establish her claim. Appellant was advised of the type of factual and medical evidence needed 

to establish her claim. 

In a March 6, 2014 diagnostic report, Dr. Abdel-Rahman Saleh, a Board-certified 

neurologist, advised that a nerve conduction study revealed severe carpal tunnel syndrome. 

In a March 13, 2014 report, Dr. Rhodes advised that appellant was still experiencing 

pain and numbness and that a nerve conduction study showed severe right carpal tunnel 

syndrome. He made the same findings on examination diagnosed severe right median nerve 

impingement at the wrist and recommended a medial nerve decompression at the wrist. 

In an April 9, 2014 statement, appellant advised that for the past 20 years she had worked 

on several machines that required repeated motion of the wrists and hands and keying 

information on various machines. She noted that two years prior she began to feel symptoms 

intermittently, but beginning in January 2014 she started experiencing continuous tingling and 

numbness. OWCP also received a copy of appellant’s job description. 

By decision dated April 21, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because the medical 

evidence was insufficient to establish that the diagnosed condition was causally related to the 

factors of her employment. 

Appellant requested reconsideration on September 26, 2014.3

 Accompanying the 

request, she submitted a summary sheet of duties for a small parcel bundle sorter clerk. The 

summary sheet had a handwritten notation further describing certain duties. 

 3

 The request was dated June 17 and September 17, 2014. 
3

By decision dated December 17, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration without a merit review. 

On appeal appellant reiterated that she has keyed information into machines at the 

employing establishment for the past 20 years. She also noted that her attending physician 

diagnosed her with carpal tunnel syndrome and recommended surgery. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

OWCP regulations provide that the evidence or argument submitted by a claimant must 

either: (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.4 Where the request 

for reconsideration fails to meet at least one of these standards, OWCP will deny the application 

for reconsideration without opening the case for a review of the merits.5

ANALYSIS 

In a December 17, 2014 merit decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because medical 

evidence did not establish that the diagnosed condition was causally related to the work incident. 

Appellant submitted a timely request for reconsideration received by OWCP on September 26, 

2014, which was denied without a merit review. 

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

without further merit review. The issue in this case is whether appellant established that her 

daily work duties caused or contributed to her diagnosed medical condition. This is a medical 

issue for which Dr. Rhodes or other medical professions needed to provide a rationalized 

opinion. OWCP’s December 17, 2014 decision informed appellant that the medical evidence 

was insufficient to establish that her claimed condition was caused by her employment. In 

support of her reconsideration request, appellant submitted a summary sheet of duties for a small 

parcel bundle sorter clerk. This evidence concerns her work duties, but it is not relevant to the 

underlying medical issue in the claim.6

 Appellant did not submit any new medical evidence on 

the cause of her claimed condition. 

Aside from this lack of evidence, appellant failed to show that OWCP erroneously 

applied or interpreted a specific point of law. She also failed to advance a relevant legal 

argument not previously considered by OWCP. Because appellant failed to meet one of the 

standards enumerated under the regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3), she was not entitled to 

further merit review of her claim. 

 4 E.K., Docket No. 09-1827 (issued April 27, 2010). See 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

5 L.D., 59 ECAB 648 (2008). See 20 C.F.R. id. 

6 See J.P., 58 ECAB 289 (2007) (evidence that does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a 

basis for reopening a case). 
4

On appeal appellant argued that the medical evidence supported her claim, but the Board 

does not have jurisdiction over the merits of the claim. Because she failed to meet any of the 

three regulatory criteria for reopening a claim, she was not entitled to further merit review of her 

claim. 

CONCLUSION 

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

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

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 17, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: August 11, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board