United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

V.W., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, WALTER 

REED MEDICAL CENTER, Washington, DC, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0531 

Issued: October 19, 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 January 27, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal of an October 22, 2015 nonmerit 

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

elapsed since the last merit decision on September 8, 2014 to the filing of the appeal, pursuant to 

the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

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

Board lacks jurisdiction over the merits of this case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied the request for further merit review of the 

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

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 Appellant timely requested oral argument before the Board. By order dated June 9, 2016, the Board exercised 

its discretion and denied the request, finding that the issue could adequately be adjudicated based on review of the 

case record. Order Denying Oral Argument, Docket No. 16-0531 (issued June 9, 2016). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 17, 2010 appellant, then a 56-year-old custodial worker, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that her federal employment had aggravated her posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She referred to a December 9, 2008 incident and asserted that 

she was inappropriately asked to clean up an area that was the location of a gunshot suicide, and 

then after being diagnosed with PTSD was not accommodated. On the claim form, appellant 

acknowledged that at the time of the December 9, 2008 incident she was employed by a private 

contractor. She identified the date of injury as March 1, 2009. 

By letter dated April 27, 2010, counsel indicated that in December 2008 appellant 

worked for a private contractor, but subsequently became a federal employee and continued to 

work in the same position in the same work area. He alleged that in March 2009 appellant was 

transferred to the night shift where she worked alone and her PTSD symptoms worsened. The 

employing establishment submitted a May 20, 2010 letter from a program manager indicating 

that in December 2000 appellant was a contractor employee, and when she returned to work as a 

temporary federal employee, accommodations were made for her medical condition. The 

manager indicated that appellant was detailed to work away off-site from the main area and 

worked under a new manager. 

OWCP initially accepted the claim on August 24, 2010 for aggravation of PTSD. In a 

letter dated June 27, 2011, an employing establishment program manager argued that the 

acceptance should be rescinded. The manager indicated that the suicide incident described by 

appellant occurred on December 9, 2008, when appellant was not a federal employee, and 

appellant had sought compensation benefits through the private employer. According to the 

program manager, appellant was hired as a temporary federal worker on February 17, 2009, not 

to extend beyond March 16, 2010. The employing establishment program manager further 

indicated that the medical restrictions were accommodated, as appellant was provided work four 

miles from the site of the December 9, 2008 incident, and did not have exposure to conditions 

that might be perceived as emotionally distressing. 

By decision dated July 5, 2011, OWCP rescinded acceptance of the claim. It found that 

the evidence of record showed that appellant had been adequately accommodated for the medical 

condition she sustained as a federal contractor, when she returned to work as a temporary federal 

employee. 

In a letter dated July 5, 2011, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional evidence 

to establish her claim for compensation. Appellant was afforded 30 days to respond to the 

employing establishment comments regarding reasonable accommodation, and to submit further 

evidence or argument that her injury occurred in the performance of duty. 

The record contains a memorandum of telephone call (Form CA-110) dated August 4, 

2014 indicating that appellant was upset that OWCP had not issued a final decision as to her 

claim for compensation. 

By merit decision dated September 8, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for 

compensation. It found the employing establishment had accommodated appellant’s medical 
3

condition and the evidence of record did not establish any compensable work factors with respect 

to the claim for compensation. 

On July 6, 2015 appellant submitted a June 29, 2015 letter requesting reconsideration. 

She asserted that her claim was not properly investigated. Appellant noted that she had no new 

evidence, but she was on medication for PTSD and felt that she had submitted sufficient 

evidence to establish her claim. 

By decision dated October 22, 2015, OWCP denied further review of the merits of the 

claim. It found that the reconsideration request was not sufficient to require a merit review. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

OWCP’s 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 new evidence not previously considered by OWCP.”4

 20 

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

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

merits of the claim.5

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, on September 8, 2014 OWCP denied the claim for aggravation of 

PTSD, finding that appellant had not established a compensable work factor. It found that the 

December 9, 2008 incident occurred before appellant was a federal employee, and she had not 

established a compensable work factor with respect to an allegation that the employing 

establishment had failed to properly accommodate any work restrictions. To require OWCP to 

review the merits of the claim, appellant must meet one of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3). 

The Board 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, or advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. She did 

not discuss a specific point of law, and as to argument she provided a brief allegation that her 

claim was not properly investigated. Appellant did not provide further explanation or advance a 

new and relevant legal argument. 

 3

 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”). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

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

As to evidence, appellant did not submit any pertinent new and relevant evidence. She 

indicated only that she felt the previously submitted evidence was sufficient. For the reasons 

discussed, the Board finds appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(b), OWCP properly declined to review the 

merits of the claim for compensation. 

On appeal, appellant argues that she has three physicians who have diagnosed PTSD as a 

result of a traumatic incident in 2008. As indicated above, the Board does not have jurisdiction 

over the merits of the claim for compensation. The issue was whether appellant met any of the 

requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3), and the Board has found OWCP properly denied merit 

review in this case. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration without 

merit review of the 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 22, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: October 19, 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