United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.B., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS, 

EDITH NOURSE ROGERS MEMORIAL 

VETERANS HOSPITAL, Bedford, MA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-2064 

Issued: February 3, 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 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 29, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 17, 2014 nonmerit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction to review the nonmerit decision. 

ISSUE 

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

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 16, 2012 appellant, then a 51-year-old nursing assistant, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging that she sustained an injury in the performance of duty when she slipped on a wet 

floor that day and fell on her right side. She was diagnosed with sciatica and lumbar strain by 

Gail Kane, LNP, on June 18, 2012. No physician counter-signed the medical record. 

In a decision dated August 13, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim. It 

found that she had established that events occurred as described, but she did not submit any 

medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis in connection with the events. 

Appellant filed a request for reconsideration on June 20, 2013 and she submitted 

additional evidence in support of her claim. 

OWCP reviewed the merits of appellant’s claim on September 19, 2013 and denied 

modification of its prior decision. It found that additional medical was insufficient to cure the 

deficiency previously found. 

Appellant completed an appeal request form on March 18, 2014. With a mark, she 

indicated that she was requesting reconsideration. Appellant signed and dated the form. OWCP 

received this request on March 24, 2014. 

In a decision dated April 17, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s reconsideration request 

without reopening her case for a review on the merits. It found that her request neither raised 

substantive legal questions nor included new and relevant evidence. 

On appeal, appellant explains that she has been very sick, disabled, and in acute pain 

since 2012. She confesses that she does not know what she was doing with all this paperwork; 

she was denied too many times. Appellant hopes that she is doing the right thing this time. 

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 

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 decision for which review is sought.4

 A timely request for reconsideration may be 

 2 Id. at § 8128(a). 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606. 

4 Id. at § 10.607(a). 
3

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 the most recent 

merit decision in her case, namely, OWCP’s April 17, 2014 decision denying modification of its 

earlier decision to deny her traumatic injury claim. Appellant’s request is therefore timely. The 

question for determination is whether her request met at least one of the standards for obtaining a 

merit review of her case. 

Appellant’s reconsideration request did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law. 

Appellant’s appeal request form only showed a mark that she was requesting 

reconsideration. The request did not advance a relevant legal argument not previously 

considered by OWCP. The request did not contain relevant and pertinent new evidence not 

previously considered by OWCP. Such an unsupported request is insufficient, on its face, to 

warrant reopening appellant’s case for a review on the merits. 

As appellant’s reconsideration request did not meet any of the standards for reopening 

her case, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied a merit review. The Board will therefore 

affirm OWCP’s April 17, 2014 decision. 

CONCLUSION 

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

 5 Id. at § 10.608. 
4

ORDER 

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 3, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board