United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.T., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

L. STOKES CLEVELAND VETERANS 

ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, 

Cleveland, OH, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1245 

Issued: December 4, 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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 13, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of the November 14, 2014 nonmerit 

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

has elapsed since the most recent merit decision dated August 19, 2013 and the filing of this 

appeal on May 13, 2015, 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.2

ISSUE 

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

the merits of his claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 Appellant filed a timely request for oral argument. After exercising its discretion, by order dated October 9, 

2015, the Board denied his request as his arguments could be adequately addressed in a decision based on a review 

of the case record. Order Denying Request for Oral Argument, Docket No. 15-1245 (issued October 9, 2015). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 11, 1983 appellant, then a 36-year-old medical technician, fractured his right 

ankle while on a motorcycle when he failed to negotiate a turn as he entered the employing 

establishment property. The employing establishment did not dispute that he was in the 

performance of duty at the time of this incident. OWCP accepted appellant’s condition for 

bimalleolar fracture of the right ankle and expanded his claim to include osteomyelitis, infection 

at the fracture site, and deformity distal fibula of the right ankle. It authorized right ankle 

surgery which was performed on October 12 and November 30, 1983, March 23, 1984 and 

September 1997. Appellant stopped work on October 11, 1983 and returned to light-duty work 

on December 1, 1983. He was granted disability retirement on October 1, 2000.3

On September 7, 2012 appellant submitted a Form CA-2a, recurrence of medical 

treatment, asserting that in 2008, 2009, and 2011 he sustained recurrences causally related to his 

employment injury of October 11, 1983. He noted that in 2008, he was walking with a cane in 

his home and his ankle gave out and he fell into his entertainment center. Appellant noted in 

2009 he walked from the basement upstairs and almost fell again. In 2011, after returning home, 

his right ankle gave out while ascending the front steps and he fell backwards and caught himself 

on the hand rail. Appellant reported retiring in 2000 and remaining unemployed since that time. 

By letter dated October 4, 2012, OWCP advised appellant of the type of factual and 

medical evidence needed to establish his recurrence claim. It requested that he submit a 

physician’s reasoned opinion addressing the relationship of his claimed recurrent condition and 

specific employment factors. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted an x-ray of the right ankle dated July 8 and 9, 

2009 which revealed no acute fracture but an old fracture of the distal fibula with post-traumatic 

arthritic changes. A March 19, 2010 x-ray of the right foot revealed mild osteopenia, no definite 

fracture, small left calcaneal spur and extensive osteoarthritis of the right tibiotalar joint. X-rays 

of the right ankle dated January 19 and July 31, 2012 revealed an old fracture of the distal fibula 

with post-traumatic arthritic changes. A February 23, 2013 x-ray of the right ankle revealed a 

questionable nondisplaced distal fibular fracture with additional remote healed fracture of the 

distal fibula and severe degenerative changes of the ankle mortise joint. 

On March 4, 2013 appellant underwent a computerized tomography (CT) scan of the 

right lower extremity which revealed a remote distal fibular fracture with prior external fixation 

hardware and significant degenerative changes of the ankle mortise joint on the right. 

A July 26, 2012 report from a physician assistant noted treating appellant since 2002 for 

right ankle pain and arthritis. He noted appellant’s right ankle condition has progressed and he 

required an ankle fusion. 

 3

 On December 23, 1987 OWCP proposed to reduce compensation as the evidence established that appellant was 

no longer totally disabled, but rather partially disabled, and had the capacity to earn wages as a medical technologist, 

at the rate of $8.00 an hour. In a decision dated February 5, 1988, it adjusted appellant’s compensation benefits to 

reflect his wage-earning capacity as a medical technologist. Appellant filed a claim for a schedule award. In 

decisions dated September 17, 1991, April 6, 1995, April 18, 2002, February 6, 2003 and June 6, 2003, he was 

granted a schedule award for a total of 42 percent permanent impairment of the right leg. 
3

On August 19, 2013 OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence of medical 

treatment, finding that the evidence did not show a spontaneous worsening of his accepted 

condition. 

On August 2, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration. In an accompanying August 11, 

2014 letter, he asserted that he experienced a worsening of his original injury and needed further 

medical care. Appellant indicated that he has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain employment as 

a medical technologist at several hospitals and enrolled in a vocational rehabilitation program 

without success. He indicated that he underwent a third operation on his right ankle in 1997 and 

subsequently required a cane. Appellant indicated that his work restrictions were ignored by the 

employing establishment. He indicated that he continued to receive care at the Veterans 

Administration Medical Center. Appellant also submitted handwritten notes. 

Appellant submitted an x-ray of the right ankle dated July 8, 2009, a March 19, 2010 

x-ray of the right foot, a January 19, 2012 x-ray of the right ankle, a July 31, 2012 x-ray of the 

right ankle, a February 23, 2013 x-ray of the right ankle, a March 4, 2013 CT scan of the right 

lower extremity, and a copy of OWCP’s decision dated August 19, 2013, all previously of 

record. Appellant submitted an enrollment record from the University of Maryland noting he 

was registered as an undergraduate in January 2001. He submitted a letter to Suburban Hospital 

human resources recruiter applying for a medical technologist position. Appellant submitted a 

marriage license dated May 8, 2003 and a divorce decree dated August 31, 2007. He submitted a 

note from Health First dated August 30, 2013, prepared by an unidentified individual who 

diagnosed right ankle fracture with hardware, arthritis, spinal stenosis, degenerative joint disease 

of the back, and neuropathic pain. 

In a November 14, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

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

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Under section 8128(a) of FECA,4

 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)(3) of the implementing federal regulations, which provide that a claimant may 

obtain review of the merits of his or his 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.”5

 4

 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 
4

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.6

ANALYSIS 

OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence of disability finding that the medical evidence did 

not demonstrate that the claimed recurrence of his medical condition was causally related to the 

accepted injury. Thereafter, it denied his reconsideration request, without a merit review. 

The issue presented on appeal is whether appellant met any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3), requiring OWCP to reopen the case for review of the merits of the claim. 

In his request for reconsideration, appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law. In his August 11, 2014 request for reconsideration, he 

indicated that he experienced a worsening of his original injury and needed further medical care. 

Appellant indicated that he has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain employment as a medical 

technologist at several hospitals and enrolled in a vocational rehabilitation program without 

success.7 He indicated that he had a third operation on his right ankle in 1997, uses a cane, and 

continues to receive care at a Veterans Administration hospital. Appellant indicated that his 

work restrictions were ignored by the employing establishment. These assertions do not show a 

legal error by OWCP or a new and relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. 

The underlying issue in this case is whether appellant submitted medical evidence establishing 

that he sustained a recurrence of his medical condition causally related to the October 11, 1983 

work injury. That is a medical issue which must be addressed by relevant new medical 

evidence.8

However, appellant did not submit any pertinent new and relevant medical evidence in 

support of his claim. He submitted an x-ray of the right ankle dated July 8, 2009, a March 19, 

2010 x-ray of the right foot, a January 19, 2012 x-ray of the right ankle, a July 31, 2012 x-ray of 

the right ankle, a February 23, 2013 x-ray of the right ankle, a March 4, 2013 CT scan of the 

right lower extremity, and a copy of OWCP’s decision dated August 19, 2013. However, these 

reports are duplicative of evidence previously submitted and were considered by OWCP in its 

decision dated August 19, 2013. 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.9

 Therefore, 

these reports are insufficient to require OWCP to reopen the claim for a merit review. 

Appellant submitted a note from Health First dated August 30, 2013, prepared by an 

unidentified individual who diagnosed right ankle fracture with hardware, arthritis, spinal 

 6 Id. at § 10.608(b). 

7

 The record indicates that appellant is not currently in receipt of wage-loss benefits, that he has claimed such 

benefits, or that he has requested modification of the February 5, 1988 loss of wage-earning capacity decision. 

8 See Bobbie F. Cowart, 55 ECAB 746 (2004). 

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

ECAB 1090, 1093-94 (1984). 
5

stenosis, degenerative joint disease of the back, and neuropathic pain. There is no indication of 

who signed this report. The Board has held that medical reports lacking proper identification do 

not constitute probative medical evidence.10 Thus, this report is insufficient to require OWCP to 

reopen the claim for a merit review. 

Appellant submitted an enrollment record from the University of Maryland dated 

January 2001, a letter to Suburban Hospital human resources recruiter applying for a medical 

technologist position, a marriage license dated May 8, 2003, and a divorce decree dated 

August 31, 2007. As explained, the underlying issue in this claim is whether the medical 

evidence establishes that he sustained a recurrence of his accepted medical condition. These 

records are not relevant to this underlying medical issue. Therefore, this new evidence is 

insufficient to warrant reopening the case for a merit review. 

On appeal, appellant asserts that he submitted sufficient evidence to establish that he 

sustained a recurrence of disability causally related to his October 11, 2013 work injury. He also 

asserts that OWCP failed to inform him that his claim was closed in 2012. The Board does not 

have jurisdiction over the merits of the claim. 

The Board accordingly finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a 

specific point of law, advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP, or 

constitute relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review. 

CONCLUSION 

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

the merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 10 See R.M., 59 ECAB 690 (2008); D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 14, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: December 4, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board