United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Linwood, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1215 

Issued: August 13, 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 H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 6, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a January 30, 2015 nonmerit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Since more than 180 days had 

elapsed between the last merit decision on August 22, 2014 and 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 the claim. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly determined that appellant’s application for 

reconsideration was insufficient to warrant merit review of the claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) of 

FECA. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 23, 2014 appellant, then a 39-year-old letter carrier, filed a Form CA-2 claim for 

occupational disease or illness as a result of her federal employment. She identified job duties of 

bending, stooping, loading, lifting, pushing, pulling, and carrying of cased mail as contributing to 

a back injury. The nature of the condition was described as an L4-5 herniated disc with 

radiculopathy, and thoracic or lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis. The reverse of the claim form 

indicated that appellant had stopped working on April 29, 2014. 

With respect to medical evidence, appellant submitted a report dated April 28, 2014 from 

Dr. David Callaghan, an osteopath, providing results on examination and diagnosing lumbar 

radiculopathy and thoracic or lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis. Dr. Callaghan also provided a 

note indicating that appellant should be off work commencing April 29, 2014. In an attending 

physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated May 28, 2014, he diagnosed L4-5 herniated disc with 

radiculopathy, and thoracic or lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis. Dr. Callaghan checked a box 

“yes” that the diagnosed conditions were employment related. Appellant also submitted reports 

from Dr. Callaghan dated May 5 through July 9, 2014 providing results on examination. 

By decision dated August 22, 2014, OWCP denied the claim for compensation. It found 

that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish her claim. 

On November 11, 2014 OWCP received a request for reconsideration. In a letter dated 

November 7, 2014, appellant stated that she had gone to an orthopedic surgeon and had 

undergone x-ray examination, as well as a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. She stated 

that the tests showed disc degeneration, herniation, and bulging discs. Appellant report that she 

was enclosing copies of her office visits. The record does not contain any additional medical 

evidence. 

By decision dated January 30, 2015, OWCP found the reconsideration request was 

insufficient to warrant a review of the merits of the claim for compensation. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128(a) of FECA,2

OWCP regulations provide that a claimant may obtain review of the merits of the claim by 

submitting a written application for reconsideration that sets forth arguments and contains 

evidence that either “(i) shows that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of 

law; (ii) advances a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP; or 

(iii) constitutes relevant and pertinent evidence not previously considered by OWCP.”3

 20 

C.F.R. § 10.608(b) states that any application for review that does not meet at least one of the 

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) (providing that “[t]he Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against payment of 

compensation at any time on his own motion or on application”). 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 
3

requirements listed in 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3) will be denied by OWCP without review of the 

merits of the claim.4

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational claim, finding that the 

medical evidence did not establish a diagnosed condition causally related to the identified 

employment activities. Appellant submitted a November 7, 2014 letter requesting 

reconsideration, stating that she had been treated by an orthopedic surgeon and had undergone 

diagnostic testing. She did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific 

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

Although appellant stated that she was submitting additional medical evidence, the record 

does not contain any additional medical evidence submitted on reconsideration. As noted above, 

the basis for the denial of the claim was the lack of probative medical evidence on causal 

relationship between a diagnosed condition and employment activity as a letter carrier. The 

Board finds that appellant did not submit relevant and pertinent evidence not previously 

considered by OWCP. As appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3), OWCP properly denied the request for reconsideration without reviewing the 

merits of the claim for compensation. 

On appeal, appellant states that she did enclose additional medical evidence with her 

reconsideration request. She states that her claim has been handled by several claims examiners 

and some of her medical evidence may not have been properly handled. The Board, however, 

can only review the evidence of record.5

 There is no additional medical evidence contained in 

this case record. Appellant may submit evidence to OWCP with a request for reconsideration. 

On this appeal, however, the Board finds that the January 30, 2015 OWCP decision properly 

denied merit review of the claim. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied the application for reconsideration without 

merit review of the claim. 

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

5

 The Board reviews evidence that was before OWCP at the time of the decision an appeal. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated January 30, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: August 13, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board