United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.T., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CORPS OF 

ENGINEERS, San Francisco, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1007 

Issued: August 15, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 12, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from the February 17, 2016 nonmerit 

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

elapsed between the last merit decision of OWCP dated April 30, 2015 to 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 this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for further merit review 

of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

On appeal, appellant contends that her attending physician had submitted a medical 

diagnosis as requested. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 26, 2015 appellant, then a 71-year-old contract specialist, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that on January 22, 2015 she first became 

aware of her sore wrists which made it difficult for her to type and realized that her condition 

was caused or aggravated by typing on a computer at work. She did not submit any evidence 

with her claim. 

By letter dated March 10, 2015, OWCP informed appellant about the deficiencies in her 

claim and provided her the opportunity to submit medical and factual evidence within 30 days. 

No response was received within the allotted time period. 

In an April 30, 2015 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as she did not submit any 

medical evidence to establish that a medical condition was diagnosed in connection with the 

claimed work factor. 

On May 14, 2015 appellant provided a history of her employment, described her hobbies, 

and claimed that she had experienced soreness in her left hand and wrist, off and on over the 

years. She also submitted a description of her contract specialist position. 

In an after-summary visit report dated February 2, 2015, Dr. Rose Eng, a Board-certified 

internist, provided appellant with instructions for the medical treatment of her wrist and work 

recommendations. 

On November 13, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration of the April 30, 2015 

decision. 

Documentation of medical treatment from Kaiser Permanente described appellant’s home 

exercise program and care instructions for trigger finger. 

Employment records addressed appellant’s request for an ergonomic consultation and 

equipment regarding her wrist, neck, shoulder, and upper back discomfort and pain. 

Appellant submitted a Form CA-2 dated February 4, 2015 for a wrist injury which was 

nearly identical to the one previously submitted on February 26, 2015. 

In an undated narrative statement, appellant described the medical treatment she received 

for her trigger finger condition. She also described her work duties, which primarily included 

computer usage which she performed six hours a day on weekdays and also on weekends as 

required. Appellant asserted that, during 14 years of working at the employing establishment, 

she had issues with trigger fingers for which she took medication and treated with ice. She 

maintained that her physicians had stated that repeated typing caused her condition. 

In a February 17, 2016 decision, OWCP denied further merit review of appellant’s claim. 

It found that the evidence submitted was not sufficient to warrant a merit review. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8128 of FECA vests OWCP with a discretionary authority to determine whether 

it will review an award for or against compensation, either under its own authority or on 

application by a claimant.2

 Section 10.608(b) of OWCP’s regulations provide that a timely 

request for reconsideration may be granted if OWCP determines that the claimant has presented 

evidence and/or argument that meet at least one of the standards described in section 

10.606(b)(3).3

 This section provides that the application for reconsideration must be submitted 

in writing and 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 

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

previously considered by OWCP.4

 Section 10.608(b) provides that when a request for 

reconsideration is timely but fails to meet at least one of these three requirements, OWCP will 

deny the application for reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on the merits.5

ANALYSIS 

On November 13, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration of the April 30, 2015 

decision that denied her occupational disease claim. OWCP found that she failed to submit any 

medical evidence to establish a medical condition causally related to her accepted employment 

factors. 

The Board finds that appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law. Moreover, she did not advance a relevant legal argument not 

previously considered. 

The Board further finds that appellant did not submit any relevant or pertinent new 

evidence not previously considered. Dr. Eng’s February 2, 2015 after summary visit report 

which addressed the treatment of appellant’s wrist condition and provided work 

recommendations is not relevant to the issue of whether she had a medical condition causally 

related to the accepted employment factors. She did not provide an opinion as to whether 

appellant’s wrist condition was causally related to the accepted employment factors. Similarly, 

the medical treatment documentation from Kaiser Permanente which described appellant’s home 

exercise program and care instructions for her trigger finger condition did not contain a 

physician’s opinion that addressed the issue of causal relationship. 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 claim.6

 Thus, these reports do not constitute pertinent new 

and relevant evidence and are thus insufficient to require OWCP to reopen appellant’s case for 

further review of the merits. 

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(a). 

 4 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3). 

5 Id. at § 10.608(b). 

6 D’Wayne Avila, 57 ECAB 642 (2006). 
4

Likewise, the employment records which addressed appellant’s request for an ergonomic 

consultation and equipment regarding her wrist, neck, shoulder, and upper back discomfort and 

pain and provided a description of her contract specialist job, and the February 4, 2015 Form 

CA-2 do not constitute relevant and pertinent new evidence sufficient to warrant reopening the 

claim. This evidence did not address the underlying relevant medical issue of causal 

relationship.7

 

The Board accordingly finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review. 

On appeal, appellant contends that her attending physician had submitted a medical 

diagnosis as requested. This argument pertains to the merits of the claim. As noted, the Board 

does not have jurisdiction over the merits of the case. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for further merit review 

of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 17, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: August 15, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 7 Id.