United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.F., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Jamaica, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1745 

Issued: February 11, 2016 

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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 18, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 8, 2015 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) and an August 3, 2015 nonmerit 

decision. Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.2

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish an injury to her 

back and left shoulder causally related to factors of her federal employment; and (2) whether 

OWCP properly denied her request to reopen her case for further review of the merits under 

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 Appellant submitted new evidence with her appeal; however, the Board has no jurisdiction to review new 

evidence on appeal; see 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 1, 2015 appellant, then a 36-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on March 2, 2015 she experienced left shoulder pain and back pain 

with spasms from carrying mail. She stopped work on March 2, 2015. 

On April 21, 2015 the employing establishment advised that it appeared that appellant 

was claiming an occupational disease rather than a traumatic injury.3

By letter dated April 30, 2015, OWCP advised appellant that she should submit 

additional factual and medical information, including a detailed report from her attending 

physician, addressing the causal relationship between any diagnosed condition and the identified 

work incident. It enclosed a questionnaire requesting specific information, including 

clarification of whether she was claiming a traumatic injury or an occupational disease. 

Appellant submitted an emergency room discharge report indicating that she had received 

treatment on March 3, 2015 for a backache.4

 

On May 4, 2015 appellant completed the section of the questionnaire form provided by 

OWCP relevant to claims for occupational diseases. She indicated that she had strained her 

shoulder on March 2, 2015 after four hours of mail delivery because of the weight of her 

mailbag. Appellant further related that she had performed these duties six hours a day, five days 

a week for a period of two years. 

By decision dated July 8, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim after finding that she had 

not established an injury due to factors of her federal employment. It adjudicated her claim as an 

occupational disease based on her May 4, 2015 statement. OWCP found that appellant had not 

factually established the identified work factors as she failed to provide a detailed description of 

the circumstances surrounding her injury. It further noted that she had not clarified whether she 

was claiming a back condition as well as a left shoulder condition, and had not provided the 

medical evidence establishing a diagnosed condition as a result of a claimed work factor. 

On July 23, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration. She resubmitted the first page of 

her traumatic injury claim form and a May 8, 2015 form report from her physician. 

 3

 In a report dated March 9, 2015, Dr. Stella Ilyaev, a Board-certified internist, related that she had treated 

appellant for three years for “chronic back pain, associated with muscle spasms, exacerbated by [the] carrying of 

heavy bags” as a result of her work for the employing establishment. She noted that appellant’s “last day of work 

ended in the emergency room....” In a March 30, 2015 work restriction evaluation, Dr. Ilyaev diagnosed back 

spasms and sprain and checked “yes” that the history of injury corresponded to that provided by appellant that she 

was experiencing a back strain with sore muscles and spams. 

4

 In a form report dated May 8, 2015, Dr. Ilyaev diagnosed back strain/strain and checked a box marked “yes” 

that the condition was caused or aggravated by employment, providing as a rationale that appellant carried up to 70 

pounds at work. She advised that appellant was totally disabled from March 2, 2015 to the present. In a June 8, 

2015 work restriction evaluation, Dr. Ilyaev diagnosed lower back strain and listed work restrictions. 
3

In a decision dated August 3, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

as she had not raised an argument or submitted evidence sufficient to warrant reopening her case 

for further merit review under section 8128(a). 

On appeal appellant asserts that the employing establishment incorrectly spelled her 

name and thus she was not in the system as sustaining a work injury under file number 

xxxxxx521. She maintains that she has met her burden of proof and is entitled to reconsideration 

of the adverse decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 has the burden to establish the essential 

elements of his or her claim, including the fact that the individual is an “employee of the United 

States” within the meaning of FECA; that the claim was filed within the applicable time 

limitation; that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged; and that any 

disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the 

employment injury.6

 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.7

Appellant has the burden of proof to submit a factual statement identifying the 

employment factors alleged to have caused the occurrence of the claimed disease or condition.8

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish an injury in 

the performance of duty. Appellant alleged that she sprained her back and injured her left 

shoulder on March 2, 2015 after carrying mail. By letter dated April 30, 2015, OWCP advised 

her of the deficiencies of her claim and the need to submit additional information regarding the 

alleged incident. It provided appellant with a questionnaire to complete. In response, on the 

section of the questionnaire relevant to occupational disease claims, appellant asserted that on 

March 2, 2015 she strained her shoulder delivering mail. She further indicated that she had 

performed the described activities five days a week, six hours a day, for two years. Based on 

appellant’s response, OWCP adjudicated her claim as an occupational injury. It found, however, 

that she had not adequately described the circumstances surrounding her injury or discuss 

whether she had any previous history of similar symptoms. 

The Board finds that appellant failed to establish her claim. It is her burden to submit a 

detailed description of the employment factors that she believes caused or adversely affected the 

condition or conditions for which compensation is claimed.9

 The need in this case for detailed 

 5 Supra note 1. 

6 Tracey P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

7 See Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 

8 See Allen C. Hundley, 53 ECAB 551 (2002). 

9 Penelope C. Owens, 54 ECAB 684 (2003). 
4

factual evidence is especially important since it is currently difficult to determine the exact 

nature of the claimed injury and whether appellant is claiming a traumatic injury or occupational 

disease. On her claim form, appellant attributed a back and left shoulder condition to carrying 

mail on March 2, 2015. In a May 4, 2015 response to OWCP’s request for information, she 

alleged that she strained her shoulder delivering mail for four hours on March 2, 2015. 

Appellant thus appears to implicate a traumatic event as the cause of either a shoulder or back 

condition rather than work factors occurring over more than one work shift.10 She further 

related, however, that she performed the activities alleged to have caused her condition five days 

a week for two years. As appellant did not provide a factual statement describing in detail the 

events that caused the claimed injury and the circumstances surrounding the injury, she has not 

met her burden of proof. Consequently, it is unnecessary to address the medical evidence of 

record.11

On appeal appellant maintains that the employing establishment initially did not list her 

as having a work injury because it misspelled her name. She also contends that she has met her 

burden of proof. As noted, however, appellant’s burden of proof includes the submission of a 

factual statement describing the claimed injury. She did not submit such evidence and thus did 

not meet her burden of proof.12 The prior alleged misspelling of appellant’s name is irrelevant to 

the present denial of her claim. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for 

reconsideration to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128 and 

20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128(a) of FECA,13

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 OWCP; or (3) constitute relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously 

considered by OWCP.14 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.15 When a claimant fails to meet one of the above standards, OWCP 

 10 A traumatic injury is defined as a “condition of the body caused by a specific event or incident, or series of 

events or incidents, within a single workday or shift.” 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). An occupational disease is defined as a 

condition produced by the work environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.” 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.5(q). 

11 See M.P., Docket No. 15-0952 (issued July 23, 2015); Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005). 

12 See R.H., Docket No. 15-0508 (issued July 10, 2015). 

13 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. Section 8128(a) of FECA provides 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.” 

14 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

15 Id. at § 10.607(a). 
5

will deny the application for reconsideration without reopening the case for review on the 

merits.16

The Board has held that the submission of evidence which repeats or duplicates evidence 

already in the case record does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.17 The Board also has 

held that the submission of evidence which does not address the particular issue involved does 

not constitute a basis for reopening a case.18

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

The underlying issue on reconsideration is whether appellant submitted sufficient 

evidence to establish that she sustained an employment injury. OWCP received her July 23, 

2015 reconsideration request within one year of its July 8, 2015 merit decision. Appellant’s 

request is, therefore, timely. The question that remains is whether the request meets at least one 

of the three standards for obtaining a merit review. 

The Board finds that appellant’s request for reconsideration is insufficient to require 

OWCP to reopen the case for merit review. She indicated with a checkmark on the appeal 

request form that she was requesting reconsideration. Appellant did not attempt to show that 

OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a point of law or advance a relevant argument. 

Further, she did not submit pertinent new and relevant evidence not previously considered. With 

her reconsideration request, appellant resubmitted a page of her claim form and a May 8, 2015 

form report from her physician. Evidence which repeats or duplicates evidence already in the 

case record has no evidentiary value and does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.19

On appeal appellant argues that she should receive reconsideration of the adverse 

decision. As her July 23, 2015 request for reconsideration did not meet any of the standards for 

reopening her case, the Board therefore finds that OWCP properly denied her request for further 

merit review under section 8128(a). 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish an injury to 

her back and left shoulder causally related to factors of her federal employment. The Board 

further finds that OWCP properly denied her request to reopen her case for further review of the 

merits under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 16 Id. at § 10.608(b). 

17 F.R., 58 ECAB 607 (2007); Arlesa Gibbs, 53 ECAB 204 (2001). 

18 P.C., 58 ECAB 405 (2007); Ronald A. Eldridge, 53 ECAB 218 (2001); Alan G. Williams, 52 ECAB 

180 (2000). 

19 See J.P., 58 ECAB 289 (2007); Richard Yadron, 57 ECAB 207 (2005). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 3 and July 8, 2015 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: February 11, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board