United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Hesperia, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0462 

Issued: May 6, 2016 

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 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 12, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal of a December 21, 

2015 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). As more 

than 180 days has elapsed since the last merit decision of OWCP, dated February 12, 2014, 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 over the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly refused further merit review of appellant’s claim 

under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board. In a decision dated October 23, 2014, 

the Board affirmed OWCP’s February 12, 2014 decision, which found that appellant had failed 

to submit sufficient medical evidence to establish an injury causally related to factors of her 

federal employment.2

 The facts of the case, as set forth in the prior decision, are incorporated 

herein by reference. 

On September 25, 2015 appellant’s counsel requested reconsideration. He indicated that 

he was submitting new medical evidence, which had not previously been considered. 

In an April 15, 2015 report, a healthcare provider with an illegible signature indicated 

that the primary condition that prevented appellant from working was knee pain. The individual 

noted objective findings including arthritis. The individual recommended no walking more than 

10 minutes per hour and a knee replacement. Additionally, the period April to October 13, 2015 

was identified as a period that she was unable to work. 

By decision dated December 21, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration finding that the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant further merit 

review. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Under section 8128(a) of FECA,3

 OWCP may reopen a case for review on the merits in 

accordance with the guidelines set forth in section 10.606(b)(3) of the implementing federal 

regulations, which provides that a claimant may obtain review of the merits if the written 

application for reconsideration, including all supporting documents, sets forth arguments and 

contains 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.”4

 2

 Docket No. 14-929 (issued October 23, 2014). On November 14, 2012 appellant, a city carrier, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging a right knee and foot condition as a result of her employment. On 

January 23, 2013 OWCP denied the claim. In a June 20, 2013 decision, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed 

the denial finding that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish an injury causally related to employment 

duties. Appellant requested reconsideration. On February 12, 2014 OWCP denied modification of the June 20, 

2013 decision. 

3

 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b). 
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.5

ANALYSIS 

Appellant disagreed with the denial of her claim for an occupational disease and her 

counsel requested reconsideration on September 25, 2015. The underlying issue on 

reconsideration is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish an injury causally 

related to factors of her federal employment. However, appellant has not provided any relevant 

or pertinent new evidence regarding the issue. 

On reconsideration, counsel advised that he was submitting new medical evidence. 

However, it is unclear whether the April 15, 2015 report with an illegible signature is the report 

of a physician. The Board has held that medical reports lacking proper identification do not 

constitute probative medical evidence.6

 The Board notes that the relevant issue in this claim, 

whether appellant sustained an occupational disease causally related to her federal employment 

factors, is a medical question and must be resolved by the submission of relevant medical 

evidence.7 As appellant did not submit any probative medical evidence which addressed the 

issue of causal relationship, the evidence did not constitute a basis for reopening the case.8

 

Consequently, the evidence submitted by appellant on reconsideration does not satisfy the 

third criterion, noted above, for reopening a claim for merit review. Appellant also has not 

shown that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law, or advanced a 

relevant new argument not previously submitted. Therefore, OWCP properly denied his request 

for reconsideration. 

CONCLUSION 

 The Board finds that OWCP properly refused further merit review of appellant’s claim 

under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 5 Id. at § 10.608(b). 

6 R.M., 59 ECAB 690, 693 (2008). See also C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010) (a medical report 

may not be considered as probative medical evidence if there is no indication that the person completing the report 

qualifies as a physician as defined in FECA); 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2) (defines the term physician). 

7 See Paul Foster, 56 ECAB 208 (2004) (causal relationship is a medical issue).

8

 See Alan G. Williams, 52 ECAB 180 (2000); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000); Robert P. 

Mitchell, 52 ECAB116 (2000). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 21, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 6, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board