United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.H., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Chicago, IL, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-1101 

Issued: August 3, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 25, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 30, 2017 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated August 2, 2016, 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 over the merits of the claim.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP after the March 30, 2017 decision was 

issued. The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final 

decision. Therefore, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review this additional evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 22, 2012 appellant, then a 46-year-old mail handler, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2), alleging that she developed tendinosis of the supraspinatus tendon 

due to her federal duties. She indicated that she first became aware of her condition and 

attributed it to her federal employment on June 11, 2011. OWCP initially accepted the claim for 

left shoulder disorder of bursae and tendons, and authorized left shoulder arthroscopic 

subacromial decompression performed by Dr. Daniel P. Mass, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, on August 3, 2012. It also accepted acromioclavicular (AC) arthropathy of the left 

shoulder and recurrences of disability beginning October 25, 2011 and October 26, 2013, and 

expanded the claim to include left shoulder AC arthropathy. Appellant returned to part-time, 

limited-duty work on November 27, 2013. On March 3, 2014 she underwent a left shoulder 

arthroscopic capsular release and arthroscopic subacromial decompression, which was also 

performed by Dr. Mass. On December 20, 2014 appellant returned to work in a full-time, 

limited-duty capacity. 

Appellant stopped work on February 11, 2015, and later filed several claims for 

compensation (Form CA-7) for temporary total disability beginning February 11, 2015. She 

submitted February 12 and 26, 2015 work excuses, and a March 4, 2015 report from Dr. Mass 

who diagnosed left shoulder adhesive capsulitis and advised that she was disabled for work 

because her right shoulder was aggravated by nonuse of the left shoulder after surgery. 

By decision dated April 8, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claimed recurrence of 

disability beginning February 11, 2015 because the medical evidence of record failed to establish 

that her accepted condition(s) materially changed/worsened to the point that she was unable to 

work at all. 

OWCP subsequently paid appellant wage-loss compensation beginning April 18, 2015 

because the employing establishment was unable to accommodate her work restrictions. It 

placed her on the periodic compensation rolls effective May 31, 2015. 

On January 27, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration of the April 8, 2015 decision 

and argued that the medical evidence of record and her request for surgery established her 

disability for the period claimed. i.e., commencing February 11, 2015. She further indicated that 

she had not been back to work since February 11, 2015 and her condition remained the same. 

By decision dated August 2, 2016, OWCP denied modification of its April 8, 2015 

decision denying appellant’s claim for disability compensation for the period February 11 to 

April 17, 2015. It found that the medical evidence of record failed to establish that she was 

totally disabled for the period claimed. 

On October 20, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration for a second time. She 

submitted reports dated September 7 and December 7, 2016, and March 9, 2017 from 
3

Dr. Salman A. Chaudri, an orthopedic surgeon, who indicated that she was injured on June 11, 

2011 and continued to be totally disabled for work due to her pain.3 

Appellant also submitted an October 13, 2016 report from Dr. Mass who indicated that 

appellant was seen for work-related pain in both shoulders during the time period February 11 to 

March 4, 2015. Dr. Mass reported that she had been examined during this period and he found 

that her level of pain, as well as her range of motion, might require surgery, which she did not 

want and OWCP wanted more specific reasoning as to why she was unable to work at that time. 

He opined that appellant was unable to work during the period claimed because of her secondary 

pain and decreased range of motion, which precluded work. 

By decision dated March 30, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

without a merit review because she failed to advance a relevant legal argument or submit any 

relevant and pertinent new evidence. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8128(a) of FECA does not entitle a claimant to review of an OWCP decision as a 

matter of right.4 OWCP has discretionary authority in this regard and has imposed certain 

limitations in exercising its authority.5 One such limitation is that the request for reconsideration 

must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of the decision for which review is 

sought.6 A timely application for reconsideration, including all supporting documents, must set 

forth arguments and contain evidence that either: (1) shows that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advances a relevant legal argument not previously 

considered by OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously 

considered by OWCP.7 When a timely application for reconsideration does not meet at least one 

of the above-noted requirements, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for a review on the merits.8

 3

 In April 2015, OWCP recognized Dr. Chaudri as appellant’s current treating physician. Dr. Chaudri first 

examined appellant on April 20, 2015. 

4

 This section provides in pertinent part: “[t]he Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against payment 

of compensation at any time on [his/her] own motion or on application.” 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.607. 

6 Id. at § 10.607(a). For merit decisions issued on or after August 29, 2011, a request for reconsideration must be 

“received” by OWCP within one year of OWCP decision for which review is sought. Federal (FECA) Procedure 

Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 (February 2016). Timeliness is determined by the 

document receipt date of the request for reconsideration as indicated by the “received date” in the Integrated Federal 

Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS). Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4b. 

7

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

8 Id. § 10.608(a), (b). 
4

ANALYSIS 

In support of her October 20, 2016 reconsideration request, appellant submitted a new 

medical report dated October 13, 2016 from Dr. Mass who indicated that appellant was seen for 

work-related pain in both shoulders from February 11 to March 4, 2015. Dr. Mass reported that 

appellant had been examined during this period and he found that her level of pain, as well as her 

range of motion, might require surgery. He opined that she was unable to work during the period 

claimed because of her secondary pain and decreased range of motion. Dr. Mass’ opinion 

directly addressed the basis upon which OWCP denied appellant’s claim as it addressed the issue 

of causal relationship between her condition and her claim for disability compensation for the 

period February 11 to April 17, 2015. For these reasons, the Board finds that his October 13, 

2016 report constituted relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by 

OWCP. As it meets one of the standards for obtaining a merit review of appellant’s case, the 

Board finds that OWCP improperly denied appellant’s request. Appellant is entitled to a merit 

review. 

The Board has held that, in support of a request for reconsideration, a claimant is not 

required to submit all evidence which may be necessary to discharge his or her burden of proof. 

He or she need only submit relevant and pertinent evidence not previously considered by 

OWCP.9 Therefore, the Board will reverse OWCP’s March 30, 2017 decision denying 

appellant’s request for reconsideration and will remand the case for a merit review. After such 

further development of the evidence as might be necessary, OWCP shall issue an appropriate

decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP improperly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 9 See Helen E. Tschantz, 39 ECAB 1382 (1988). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 30, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside, and the case remanded to OWCP for further 

action consistent with this decision. 

Issued: August 3, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board