United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

E.O., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL AIR 

WARFARE CENTER, China Lake, CA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-635 

Issued: June 5, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 27, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from the September 3, 2014 nonmerit 

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

has elapsed between the last merit decision on February 11, 2014 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 the claim. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly declined to reopen appellant’s case, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. § 8128(a), for further consideration of the merits of his claim. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 3, 2009 appellant, a 41-year-old computer scientist, sustained an injury in the 

performance of duty when his vehicle slid and rolled over. OWCP accepted his claim for lumbar 

sprain and multiple contusions. It also accepted a sprain of the shoulder and upper arm, and a 

rotator cuff and other unspecified conditions of the shoulder region. 

In a decision dated February 11, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for 

reimbursement for mileage in excess of 100 miles and for wage-loss compensation in excess of 

four hours a day to attend medical appointments. It explained that reimbursement of reasonable 

and necessary expenses, including transportation needed to obtain authorized medical services is 

established at 50 miles (one way) to obtain such services and four hours as the standard for 

reimbursement for wage loss due to medical appointments. 

On July 28, 2014 OWCP received appellant’s July 22, 2014 appeal request form 

indicating, with a mark, that he was requesting reconsideration of the February 11, 2014 

decision. 

The record contains reports of various diagnostic tests, medical examinations, and 

treatment plans from the following medical providers: Southern Sierra Medical Clinic, 

Ridgecrest, CA; The Hand and Wrist Institute of Beverly Hills, CA; AVORS Medical Group, 

Lancaster, CA; and Dr. Eric S. Millstein, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon and sports injury 

specialist. 

In a decision dated September 3, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s reconsideration 

request. It found that because he did not submit any additional evidence with his appeal request 

form, it was insufficient to warrant a review of the February 11, 2014 decision. OWCP added 

that although it had received various medical reports since February 11, 2014, they did not 

address the issue of reimbursement for excess travel and wage loss to attend medical 

appointments. 

On appeal, appellant offers a letter and documentation to explain his reason for receiving 

physical therapy more than 50 miles from his residence and his argument that he is entitled to 

mileage reimbursement for that travel. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

own motion or upon application.2

 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 

 2 Id. at § 8128(a). 
3

not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not 

previously considered by OWCP.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.4

 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 these standards. 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.5

ANALYSIS 

OWCP received appellant’s reconsideration request within one year of its February 11, 

2014 decision. Appellant’s request is therefore timely. The question for determination is 

whether that request met at least one of the three standards for reopening his 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. Also the request did not contain relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously 

considered by OWCP. Indeed, appellant submitted no argument or evidence to support his 

reconsideration request. Appellant did nothing more than indicate his appeal preference. Such a 

bare request is insufficient, on its face, to warrant a reopening of his case.6

The medical evidence received by OWCP since February 11, 2014 is irrelevant to the 

issue decided on that date. OWCP denied reimbursement because it had exercised its discretion 

to place some limit, applicable to all claimants, on the reimbursable distance one may travel to 

receive medical services and the number of reimbursable hours one may claim for a medical 

appointment. The Board has held that evidence which does not address the particular issue 

involved also does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.7

Accordingly, as appellant’s reconsideration request did not meet at least one of the three 

standards for reopening his case, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied a merit review. 

The Board will affirm OWCP’s September 3, 2014 decision.8

 3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606. 

4 Id. at § 10.607(a). 

5 Id. at § 10.608. 

6 J.A., Docket No. 14-1447 (issued October 21, 2014). 

7 See Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224, 225 (1979). 

8

 The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the time of its 

final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1). 
4

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant is not entitled to a merit review. Appellant’s 

reconsideration request did not meet at least one of the three standards for reopening his case. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 3, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 5, 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