United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

F.J., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MAIN POST OFFICE, 

Atlanta, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1050 

Issued: August 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 13, 2015 appellant filed a timely from a January 7, 2015 nonmerit decision of 

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

between the last merit decision of OWCP, dated September 24, 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 to review the merits of this case.2

ISSUE 

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

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

On appeal, appellant contends that OWCP overlooked the opinion of an attending 

physician regarding his wrist tendinitis. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2 See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 8, 2014 appellant, then a 42-year-old mail processing clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim alleging that on July 25, 2014 he developed a lump on his right wrist due to 

repetitive movement of the wrist. In a letter also dated August 8, 2014, he stated that he noticed 

a small knot on his right wrist and experienced tenderness and sought medical evaluation by a 

physician who diagnosed a cyst. Appellant informed the physician about the repetitive 

movements he performed at work, which included constant sweeping and grabbing of letters. 

The physician advised that the repetitive motion may have caused appellant’s condition. 

Appellant submitted several medical reports which addressed his right wrist conditions, 

work capacity, and medical treatment. 

By letter dated August 18, 2014, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence submitted 

was insufficient to establish his claim. It requested factual and medical evidence to support his 

claim. OWCP also requested that the employing establishment provide any medical evidence, if 

appellant had been treated at its medical facility. 

On August 26, 2014 appellant described job duties that he believed contributed to his 

right wrist condition. He swept mail stacks by address and repeatedly lifted handfuls of mail at a 

time from sorting machine bins and placed the mail in letter trays. Appellant performed these 

duties four hours a day on at least two occasions. 

Appellant submitted several medical reports which included a September 3, 2014 report 

signed by Andrea Haynes, a nurse practitioner, in care of Dr. Stephen A. Dawkins, an attending 

physician Board-certified in occupational medicine. Ms. Haynes noted appellant’s right wrist 

complaints, provided examination findings, and reviewed prior wrist x-ray test results. She 

diagnosed pain, sprain/strain, and tenosynovitis of the wrist, and an elbow, forearm, and wrist 

injury. Ms. Haynes addressed appellant’s treatment plan and stated that he was qualified for full 

work. 

In a September 9, 2014 statement, the employing establishment related that on August 8, 

2014 it learned that appellant had a right wrist cyst. It described his repetitive work duties which 

included lifting first class and standard letter trays, and loading mail from the trays to a delivery 

bar code sorter ledge, seven hours a day. Appellant also swept full bins, pulled full trays out of 

racks, and inducted full trays into the tray management system. The employing establishment 

thus stated that his job required the use of hand and wrist movements. 

In a September 24, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. 

It found that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish that the claimed medical 

condition was causally related to the accepted work event(s). 

By letter dated December 18, 2014, appellant requested reconsideration. He submitted a 

partial copy of Ms. Haynes’ September 3, 2014 report which contained a November 4, 2014 

addendum by Dr. Dawkins stating that appellant had developed wrist tendinitis from overuse of 

his hands and wrist while repeatedly lifting mail. The overuse reflected appellant’s repeated 

performance of required tasks. Dr. Dawkins advised that appellant’s repeated hand and wrist 
3

movement caused localized inflammation of his tendons as a manifestation of his overuse. He 

opined that his wrist tendinitis was a direct result of the above-described work activities. 

In a January 7, 2015 decision, OWCP denied merit review of appellant’s claim as the 

evidence submitted was repetitious and duplicative. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128 of FECA,3

OWCP’s regulations provide that a claimant must: (1) show that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advance a relevant legal argument not previously 

considered by it; or (3) constitute relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered 

by OWCP.4

 To be entitled to a merit review of an OWCP decision denying or terminating a 

benefit, a claimant also must file his or her application for review within one year of the date of 

that decision.5

 Section 10.608(b) of the implementing regulations state that any application for 

review that does not meet at least one of the requirements listed in 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2) will 

be denied by OWCP without review of the merits of the claim.6

ANALYSIS 

The Board has reviewed the case record and finds that OWCP erred in its refusal to 

reopen appellant’s case for further consideration of the merits pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

In support of his reconsideration request, appellant submitted a November 20, 2014 

addendum note from Dr. Dawkins who opined that appellant had wrist tendinitis that directly 

resulted from repetitively lifting mail at work. Dr. Dawkins explained that appellant’s repeated 

hand and wrist movement caused localized inflammation of his tendons as a manifestation of his 

overuse while performing the described work activity. 

The Board finds that Dr. Dawkins’ addendum note constitutes pertinent new and relevant 

evidence not previously considered by OWCP as he provided an opinion addressing the issue of 

whether appellant sustained an injury causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

Therefore, OWCP was obligated to conduct a merit review of the claim when appellant 

submitted this evidence in support of his reconsideration request.7

 Reopening a claim for merit 

review does not require a claimant to submit all evidence which may be necessary to discharge 

his burden of proof.8

 If OWCP should determine that the new evidence submitted lacks 

 

 3 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. Under section 8128 of FECA, the Secretary of Labor may review an award for or 

against payment of compensation at any time on his own motion or on application. 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

 5 Id. at § 10.607(a). 

6 Id. at § 10.608(b); see also Norman W. Hanson, 45 ECAB 430 (1994). 

7 A.V., Docket No. 13-2174 (issued February 26, 2014); D.M., Docket No. 10-1844 (issued May 10, 2011). 

8 See Kenneth R. Mroczkowski, 40 ECAB 855 (1989); Helen E. Tschantz, 39 ECAB 1382 (1988). 
4

probative value, it may deny modification of the prior decision, but only after the case has been 

reviewed on the merits.9 After such further development as is deemed necessary, OWCP shall 

issue a de novo merit decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP erred by refusing to reopen appellant’s claim for further 

review of the merits. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 7, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further action 

consistent with this decision. 

Issued: August 4, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 9 See Dennis J. Lasanen, 41 ECAB 933 (1990).