United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

V.V., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Detroit, MI, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-352 

Issued: March 20, 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 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 28, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 3, 2014 nonmerit 

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

days elapsed from the last merit decision dated November 26, 2013 to the filing of this appeal, 

the Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of her claim pursuant to the Federal Employees’ 

Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly refused to reopen appellant’s case for 

reconsideration of her claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8128. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

Appellant, a 53-year-old mail clerk, filed a Form CA-2 claim for benefits based on an 

occupational condition on September 18, 2013, alleging that she developed lumbar, left leg, and 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

bilateral shoulder conditions causally related to employment factors. She stated that on 

October 29, 2012 she realized that she sustained an injury caused or aggravated by her 

employment. Appellant explained that on April 10, 2013 her left leg gave out due to the earlier 

injury and caused her to fall down stairs. The employing establishment controverted the claim. 

It stated that appellant had previously filed claims when she fell down the stairs on October 29, 

2012 and in April 2013 and that this claim was essentially duplicative of those claims.2 

By letter dated October 2, 2013, OWCP informed appellant that it required additional 

medical evidence in support of her claim. It requested that she submit the additional evidence 

within 30 days. 

Appellant submitted several progress reports dated June 28, August 9, September 19, and 

October 17, 2013 from Dr. Marvin Bleiberg, a specialist in pain medicine. In these reports 

Dr. Bleiberg listed appellant’s complaints of left foot pain, left leg pain, bilateral shoulder pain, 

and lower back pain and diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy, left shoulder impingement, and noted 

that she had been prescribed medications for her conditions. He advised that she had sustained 

work injuries on October 29, 2012 and April 4, 2013. Dr. Bleiberg stated that he had a long 

counseling and discussion session with appellant, in which he discussed the diagnosis, possible 

treatment options, and the prognosis, as well as the risks and benefits of the potential treatment 

options. He did not present an opinion as to whether appellant’s diagnosed conditions were 

causally related to employment factors. 

By decision dated November 26, 2013, OWCP denied the claim, finding that appellant 

failed to submit sufficient medical evidence to establish that her claimed conditions were 

causally related to employment factors. 

In reports dated November 11 and December 9, 2013, Dr. Bleiberg essentially reiterated 

his previous findings and conclusions. He diagnosed lumbar strain/sprain in addition to 

appellant’s other conditions, but did not attribute this condition to work factors. 

On June 5, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration of the November 26, 2013 decision. 

By decision dated October 3, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s application for review on 

the grounds that it neither raised substantive legal questions nor included new and relevant 

evidence sufficient to require OWCP to review its prior decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b), a claimant may obtain review of the merits of his or her 

claim by showing that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; by 

advancing a relevant legal argument not considered by OWCP; or by constituting relevant and 

pertinent evidence not previously considered by OWCP.3 Evidence that repeats or duplicates 

 2

 It is unclear from the record as to whether appellant had previously accepted claims pertaining to the alleged 

dates of injury. 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(1); see generally 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 
3

evidence already in the case record has no evidentiary value and does not constitute a basis for 

reopening a case.4

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, appellant has not shown that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law; nor has she advanced a relevant legal argument not previously 

considered by OWCP. 

In the present appeal, appellant submitted the November 11 and December 9, 2013 

reports from Dr. Bleiberg. The Board has held that the submission of evidence which does not 

address the particular issue involved in the case does not constitute a basis for reopening the 

claim.5

 The evidence appellant submitted in connection with her June 5, 2014 reconsideration 

request is not pertinent to the issue on appeal; i.e., whether she submitted sufficient medical 

evidence to establish that her lumbar, left leg and bilateral shoulder conditions were sustained in 

the performance of duty. The reports from Dr. Bleiberg merely reiterate findings and 

conclusions he made in his previous reports; these are therefore cumulative and duplicative.6 

Appellant’s reconsideration request failed to show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted 

a point of law nor did it advance a point of law or fact not previously considered by OWCP. It is 

therefore concluded that OWCP did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen appellant’s 

claim for a review on the merits in its October 4, 2014 decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly refused to reopen appellant’s case for 

reconsideration on the merits of her claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 4 Howard A. Williams, 45 ECAB 853 (1994). 

5 See David J. McDonald, 50 ECAB 185 (1998). 

6 See Patricia G. Aiken, 57 ECAB 441 (2006). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 3, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs be affirmed. 

Issued: March 20, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board