United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.C., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Centreville, VA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-2007 

Issued: January 5, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Richard A. Daniels, for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 10, 2014 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal of the 

February 27, 2014 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) which 

denied her request for reconsideration without conducting a merit review. Because more than 

180 days elapsed since the most recent merit decision dated December 20, 2012 and the filing of 

this appeal on June 10, 2014, and 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 denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 6, 2012 appellant, then a 56-year-old clerk, filed a Form CA-2, occupational 

disease claim, alleging that she developed stress as a result of working in a hostile work 

environment. She became aware of her condition and realized it was causally related to her 

employment on January 12, 2012. Appellant stopped work on April 5, 2012. 

In several statements dated February 16 to April 5, 2012, appellant alleged that her 

manager ordered her around and used a negative tone when speaking to her. She alleged that 

while faxing information to the union office on her lunch break her manager hit the stop button 

on the fax machine. Appellant alleged that she asked a coworker to verify passports and the 

coworkers told her to ask a manager to assist. She subsequently knocked on her manager’s door, 

but her manager did not respond. Appellant alleged that her manager would instruct her to do 

various job assignments that she had already completed or assign her duties to other coworkers. 

She alleged that her manager embarrassed her by interrupting her at a window in the middle of a 

transaction with a customer. Appellant further alleged that a manager physically touched her in 

an unwanted manner. 

Appellant submitted several reports from Dr. Jennifer Tau, a Board-certified family 

practitioner, dated March 29 to April 27, 2012, who treated her for work-related stress and 

anxiety, insomnia and headaches due to increased stressors at work. Dr. Tau opined that 

appellant’s current medical condition was caused or aggravated by her work environment. 

On April 30, 2012 OWCP advised appellant of the evidence needed to establish her claim 

and asked her to submit additional evidence that included a detailed description of the 

employment incidents that contributed to her claimed emotional condition. It also asked the 

employing establishment to respond to the claim. 

In an undated questionnaire appellant indicated that she filed a grievance and an Equal 

Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint. She submitted a witness statement from an 

unidentified coworker who noted working with appellant and witnessing disrespectful and 

belligerent postmasters. Appellant submitted reports from a counselor dated May 24 to 29, 2012 

who treated her for adjustment disorder, anxiety, and depressed mood, and reports from Dr. Tau 

from June 26 to November 15, 2012. Dr. Tau diagnosed appellant with anxiety and insomnia 

related to employment stress. In an October 4, 2012 report, she noted treating appellant from 

January 12 to October 4, 2012 for work-related stress and anxiety. Appellant reported insomnia, 

irritability and anxiety due to stressors at work. Dr. Tau advised that appellant had been unable 

to work since January 12, 2012 and reported being assigned tasks already completed, and moved 

repeatedly to different operations on a daily basis. She opined that appellant’s current medical 

condition was caused and aggravated by her employment environment and appellant has been 

unable to return to work due to the ongoing conflict with management. 

The employing establishment submitted a statement from Jennifer Ok, a supervisor, dated 

May 16, 2012, who disputed appellant’s allegations. Ms. Ok indicated that appellant was issued 

disciplinary actions, including official discussions and suspensions, for failure to follow 

instructions and improper conduct. She asserted that appellant never reported having work stress 

and she indicated appellant’s stress was self-induced. 
3

In a December 20, 2012 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an emotional 

condition as the evidence did not support that the events occurred as alleged. It found that she 

had not established any compensable factors of employment. 

On December 20, 2013 appellant’s representative requested reconsideration. He 

indicated that the employing establishment’s perception of a stressful condition was not a factor 

or a standard when evaluating a claim for work-related stress. Appellant’s representative noted 

that it was not relevant as to whether appellant was disciplined or had performance problems. 

He indicated that the employing establishment submitted a statement from appellant’s supervisor 

which did not dispute or controvert her allegations and therefore appellant’s version of the events 

should be determined as factual. Appellant’s representative asserted that OWCP erred in finding 

that she did not identify any incidents or events that were compensable and noted that her 

emotional condition arose as she was trying to meet the requirements of her job. Appellant also 

resubmitted Dr. Tau’s October 4, 2012 report. 

In a February 27, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration on 

the grounds that the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant a merit review. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Under section 8128(a) of FECA,2 OWCP has the discretion to reopen a case for review 

on the merits. It must exercise this discretion in accordance with the guidelines set forth in 

section 10.606(b)(2) of the implementing federal regulations, which provide that a claimant may 

obtain review of the merits of his or her written application for reconsideration, including all 

supporting documents, sets forth arguments and contain evidence which: 

“(i) Shows that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; 

or 

“(ii) Advances a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP; or 

“(iii) Constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered 

by OWCP.”3

Section 10.608(b) provides that any application for review of the merits of the claim 

which does not meet at least one of the requirements listed in section 10.606(b) will be denied by 

OWCP without review of the merits of the claim.4

ANALYSIS 

OWCP originally denied appellant’s claim for an occupational disease claim as she failed 

to establish any compensable work factors as the cause of her claimed condition. Upon 

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2). 

4 Id. at § 10.608(b). 
4

reconsideration, it denied a review of the merits of appellant’s claim because it did not meet the 

requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2).5 

In her December 20, 2013 request for reconsideration, appellant did not show that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law. Appellant’s representative noted that 

it was not relevant as to whether appellant was disciplined or had performance problems. He 

indicated that the employing establishment’s perception of a stressful condition was not a factor 

or a standard when evaluating a claim for work-related stress. Appellant’s representative 

asserted that the employing establishment and appellant’s supervisor did not dispute or 

controvert her allegations and, therefore, appellant’s version of the events should be determined 

as factual. He indicated that OWCP erred in finding that she had not identified any incident or 

events that were compensable and alleged that her emotional condition arose due to trying to 

meet the requirements of her job. Appellant’s representative failed to identify particular job 

requirements attributed to appellant’s condition. The Board has held that mere perceptions in 

emotional condition cases are not sufficient to form a basis for the payment of compensation.6

 

The underlying issue in this case is whether appellant has established a compensable 

employment factor. These general assertions do not show a legal error by OWCP or advance a 

new and relevant legal argument. 

A claimant may be entitled to a merit review by submitting new and relevant evidence, 

but appellant did not submit any new and relevant evidence in support of her claim. Appellant 

submitted a report from Dr. Tau dated October 4, 2012. However, as there was no compensable 

factor established, any medical evidence would be irrelevant to the case. Further, this report was 

already in the record. 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.7

The Board accordingly finds that appellant has not met any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2). Appellant has failed to show that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law, advanced a relevant legal argument not previously considered 

by OWCP, or constituted relevant and pertinent evidence not previously considered by OWCP. 

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review. 

On appeal, appellant’s representative asserts that she submitted sufficient evidence to 

establish a compensable employment factor and a compensable injury. As explained, above, the 

Board does not have jurisdiction to review the merits of the claim. Appellant has not submitted 

 5 Supra note 3. 

6 See G.S., Docket No. 09-764 (issued December 18, 2009) (mere perceptions and feelings of harassment will not 

support an award of compensation); C.T., Docket No. 08-2160 (issued May 7, 2009) (mere perceptions of error or 

abuse are not sufficient to establish entitlement to compensation). 

7 See Daniel Deparini, 44 ECAB 657 (1993); Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984); Bruce E. Martin, 35 

ECAB 1090, 1093-94 (1984). Furthermore, as appellant has not established a compensable factor of employment, 

the medical evidence addressing causal relationship, even if new, would not be relevant. See C.T., Docket No. 08-

2160 (issued May 7, 2009) (if a claimant has not established any compensable employment factors, OWCP need not 

consider the medical evidence). 
5

any new relevant or pertinent evidence or argument in support of her reconsideration request that 

would warrant reopening of her claim for a merit review under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2). 

CONCLUSION 

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

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 27, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 5, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board