United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

K.J., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Port Gibson, MS, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0611 

Issued: May 13, 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 February 1, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 8, 2015 nonmerit 

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

elapsed between the last merit decision dated May 12, 2015 and 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 to review the merits of this case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for further merit review 

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

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 On appeal, appellant submitted new evidence. The Board, however, is precluded from reviewing evidence 

which was not before OWCP at the time it issued its final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1); M.B., Docket No. 

09-176 (issued September 23, 2009); J.T., 59 ECAB 293 (2008); G.G., 58 ECAB 389 (2007); Donald R. Gervasi, 57 

ECAB 281 (2005); Rosemary A. Kayes, 54 ECAB 373 (2003). 
2

On appeal, appellant contends that she submitted medical evidence signed by a nurse 

practitioner and a medical doctor. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 24, 2015 appellant, then a 46-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she experienced pain on her right side, neck, back, and leg 

when she attempted to avoid hitting a deer that had run in front of her car on that date while in 

the performance of duty. She stopped work on March 30, 2015. 

An authorization for examination and/or treatment (Form CA-16) was signed and issued 

by the employing establishment on March 24, 2015. 

In a March 24, 2015 medical report, Marvell Spears, a family nurse practitioner, noted 

that appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident. He also noted her complaint about neck 

and right side pain. Mr. Spears provided examination findings and diagnosed unspecified 

thoracic or lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis, lumbago, and muscle spasm. 

In a March 30, 2015 certificate of return to work, LaDella Thomas, a receptionist at 

Claiborne City Family Health Center, reported that appellant was unable to work through 

April 11, 2015. She could return to work on April 13, 2015. 

By letter dated April 6, 2015, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of her claim 

and afforded her 30 days to submit additional medical evidence. It also requested that the 

employing establishment submit medical evidence if appellant had been treated at its medical 

facility. 

In a March 30, 2015 report, Mr. Spears reiterated appellant’s diagnoses of unspecified 

thoracic or lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis, lumbago, and muscle spasm. In an April 10, 2015 

certificate of return to work, he reported that appellant would be able to resume work on 

April 13, 2015. 

In an April 10, 2015 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Colette Scott, an attending 

family practitioner, provided clinical findings and advised that appellant could return to full-time 

work on April 13, 2015. The Form CA-17 was cosigned by Mr. Spears. 

By decision dated May 12, 2015, OWCP accepted that the March 24, 2015 incident 

occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s claim as the medical evidence did not 

contain a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted employment incident. Appellant 

was advised that a nurse or nurse practitioner was not considered a qualified physician under 

FECA. 

In an appeal request form and letter dated August 6, 2015 and received by OWCP on 

August 10, 2015, appellant requested reconsideration. She contended that the evidence 

submitted was signed by a nurse practitioner and a medical doctor, Dr. Scott. 

Appellant resubmitted Mr. Spears’ March 24 and 30, 2015 reports and Dr. Scott’s 

April 10, 2015 Form CA-17 report. She submitted Mr. Spears’ April 10, 2015 report in which he 
3

again diagnosed unspecified thoracic or lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis, lumbago, and muscle 

spasm. 

In an October 8, 2015 decision, OWCP denied further merit review of appellant’s claim. 

It found that the evidence submitted was not from a qualified physician as a nurse or a nurse 

practitioner are not considered physicians under FECA. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

OWCP’s regulation 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.4 To be entitled to a merit review of an OWCP decision denying or 

terminating a benefit, a claimant’s application for review must be received within one year of the 

date of that decision.5

 Section 10.608(b) of the implementing regulations 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.6

ANALYSIS 

Appellant disagreed with OWCP’s denial of her traumatic injury claim. She requested 

reconsideration and asserted that the evidence submitted in support of her claim was signed by a 

qualified physician. The underlying issue on reconsideration is medical in nature, whether the 

accepted March 24, 2015 work incident caused or contributed to an injury. 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s August 6, 2015 request for 

reconsideration. In her request, appellant asserted that she submitted evidence signed by a nurse 

practitioner and a medical doctor, Dr. Scott. While the April 10, 2015 Form CA-17 report was 

cosigned by Mr. Spears, a nurse practitioner, and Dr. Scott, a family practitioner, this report is 

duplicative of evidence previously considered by OWCP in its May 12, 2015 decision. 

Moreover, although signed by Dr. Scott, the report does not address medical causation which is 

the threshold issue in the case. Evidence that repeats or duplicates evidence already in the case 

record has no evidentiary value and does not constitute a basis for reopening a claim for merit 

review.7

 Evidence or argument which does not address the particular issue under consideration 

does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.8

 3 Supra note 1. Under section 8128 of FECA, the Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against 

payment of compensation at any time on his own motion or on application. 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

5 Id. at § 10.607(a). 

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

7 Denis M. Dupor, 51 ECAB 482 (2000). 

8 See K.T., Docket No. 15-1916 (issued February 1, 2016). 
4

The Board finds that the remaining evidence submitted in support of appellant’s request 

for reconsideration is insufficient to justify a merit review of her claim. The March 24 and 30 

and April 10, 2015 reports from Mr. Spears have no probative medical value as they were signed 

only by a nurse practitioner and not countersigned by a physician. A nurse practitioner is not a 

physician as defined under FECA.9

 As the underlying issue is medical in nature,10 reports from a 

layperson, such as a nurse practitioner, do not constitute medical evidence and their findings and 

opinions do not suffice for purposes of establishing FECA benefits.11 Therefore, these reports 

are of no relevance to the issue of causal relationship and do not comprise a basis for reopening a 

case for a merit review.12 

The Board accordingly finds that 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, OWCP properly denied merit review. 

On appeal, appellant contends that she submitted medical evidence signed by a nurse 

practitioner and a medical doctor. As explained, the evidence submitted by appellant is 

insufficient to reopen her claim for merit review. 

The Board notes that the employing establishment executed a Form CA-16 on March 24, 

2015 authorizing medical treatment. The Board has held that where an employing establishment 

properly executes a Form CA-16, which authorizes medical treatment as a result of an 

employee’s claim for an employment-related injury, it creates a contractual obligation, which 

does not involve the employee directly, to pay the cost of the examination or treatment regardless 

of the action taken on the claim.13 Although OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an injury, it did 

not address whether she is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses pursuant to the Form 

CA-16. Upon return of the case record, OWCP should rule on the matter. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for further merit review 

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

 9 L.D., 59 ECAB 648 (2008) (a nurse practitioner is not a physician as defined under FECA). The term physician 

includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic 

practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law. 5 U.S.C. § 8102(2). 

10 Carol A. Lyles, 57 ECAB 265 (2005) (causal relationship is a medical issue which must be resolved by 

competent medical opinion). 

11 Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECA 224, 225 (1979). 

12 Joseph A. Brown, Jr., 55 ECAB 542 (2004). 

13 See D.M., Docket No. 13-535 (issued June 6, 2013). See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.300, 10.304. 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 8, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 13, 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