United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Gastonia, NC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0214 

Issued: March 11, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 16, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 26, 2015 

nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Because more 

than 180 days elapsed from December 8, 2014, the date of the most recent merit decision of 

OWCP, 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 

appellant’s claim. 

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). 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 7, 2014 appellant, then a 44-year-old customer service supervisor, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed congestive heart failure as a 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

result of stress in the course of his federal employment. He first became aware of his condition 

and of its relationship to his federal employment on October 1, 2014. 

The employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim on October 15, 2014. It 

noted that he had not submitted rationalized medical evidence causally linking his medical 

condition to duties of his federal employment. 

On October 20, 2014 OWCP advised appellant of the evidence needed to establish his 

claim. It afforded him 30 days to submit additional evidence. On the same date, OWCP also 

requested information from the employing establishment with regard to appellant’s claimed 

injury. 

Appellant submitted several unsigned diagnostic reports dated October 2, 2014. 

In an operative report dated October 2, 2014, Dr. Justin Haynie, a Board-certified 

internist, stated that on that date, appellant underwent heart surgery. 

In a discharge summary dated October 5, 2014, Dr. Prashanth J. Kamath, a Boardcertified internist, diagnosed appellant with combined systolic/diastolic nonischemic congestive 

heart failure of unknown etiology, but potentially secondary to a viral cause; hypertension; 

hyperlipidemia; obesity; and possible sleep apnea. Appellant also submitted a report from a 

physician assistant dated October 5, 2014. 

In an undated statement received on December 1, 2014, appellant stated that during the 

week of September 12, 2014, he was required to work late on several occasions, and that 

thereafter, he had to arrive more than one hour before his scheduled arrival time. He noted that 

his work was physical in nature. On September 15, 2014 appellant noted that he had worked 

nearly 10 hours without lunch and purchased a ham and cheese sandwich for his evening meal. 

The next day, he awoke early due to stomach cramps and diarrhea. Appellant stated that these 

symptoms caused dehydration and a flare-up of gout. He returned to work on 

September 29, 2014. That night appellant awoke at 3:00 a.m. feeling short of breath and weak. 

The next day, he also felt short of breath and weak. Appellant went to the hospital, where he was 

observed with bigeminy. He stayed overnight at the hospital and was released with an external 

defibrillator and heart monitor. Appellant noted that he was currently on leave until his next 

appointment on January 22, 2015. 

By decision dated December 8, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that he 

had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish causal relationship between his 

condition and duties of his federal employment. OWCP noted that appellant had several 

nonwork-related factors that predisposed him to heart disease. 

On October 7, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s December 8, 2014 

decision. With his request, he submitted a mid-year evaluation from a supervisor and time 

sheets. 

In a report dated September 1, 2015, Dr. Alan Thomley, a Board-certified internist, 

diagnosed combined systolic/diastolic nonischemic, premature ventricular contraction-induced 

congestive heart failure. He noted that appellant was stable from a cardiac standpoint. At that 

time Dr. Thomley stated that appellant remained disabled. 
3

By decision dated October 26, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration without reviewing the merits of his case. It noted that he had not submitted 

relevant new evidence sufficient to require reconsideration of his claim. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128(a), OWCP’s 

regulations provide that the evidence or argument submitted by 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.2 Section 10.608(b) of OWCP’s regulations 

provide that when an application for reconsideration does not meet at least one of the three 

requirements enumerated under section 10.606(b)(3), OWCP will deny the application for 

reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on the merits.3

ANALYSIS 

OWCP issued a December 8, 2014 decision finding that appellant had not established a 

heart condition related to factors of his federal employment. On October 7, 2015 appellant 

requested reconsideration of this decision. With his request, he submitted a mid-year 

performance evaluation, time sheets, and a September 1, 2015 report from Dr. Thomley. 

As noted above, the Board does not have jurisdiction over the merits of the December 8, 

2014 decision. 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 his 

claim. In his October 7, 2015 request for reconsideration, appellant did not show that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law, or advance a new and relevant legal 

argument not previously considered. He merely listed the documents he was submitting on 

reconsideration. Thus, appellant is not entitled to a review of the merits of his claim based on the 

first and second above-noted requirements under section 10.606(b)(3). 

The underlying issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish an 

occupational disease, and specifically whether he had submitted sufficient medical evidence to 

establish a causal relationship between his congestive heart failure and duties of his federal 

employment. A claimant may be entitled to a merit review by submitting pertinent new and 

relevant evidence, but appellant did not submit any such evidence in this case. With his request, 

appellant submitted a mid-year performance evaluation and time sheets. These documents, while 

not previously considered by OWCP, are irrelevant to the underlying issue of his burden of proof 

to provide rationalized medical evidence addressing the cause of his condition. As such, they are 

insufficient to warrant reconsideration of appellant’s claim. 

Appellant submitted a medical report from Dr. Thomley dated September 1, 2015. This 

report, not previously considered by OWCP, was also irrelevant to the underlying issue of causal 

relationship, because it does not contain an opinion on the causal relationship between duties of 

 2

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2); D.K., 59 ECAB 141, 146 (2007). 

3 Id. at § 10.608(b); see K.H., 59 ECAB 495, 499 (2008). 
4

appellant’s federal employment and his congestive heart failure. Dr. Thomley did not offer an 

opinion as to the cause of appellant’s heart failure other than to say that it was “premature 

ventricular contraction-induced,” which is a biomechanical description of what occurred to his 

heart, not an opinion on what outside factors may have caused the condition. As such, this 

report, while not previously considered, was irrelevant to the basis upon which OWCP denied 

appellant’s claim on December 8, 2014. 

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 

submit 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 review of the merits 

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

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated October 26, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: March 11, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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