United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.G., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Jackson, MS, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1257 

Issued: March 7, 2017 

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 May 25, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from the March 8 and 25, 2016 merit 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act1

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

jurisdiction over the merits of the claim.2

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a ratable 

impairment of the upper extremities warranting a schedule award; and (2) whether OWCP 

properly declined to reopen appellant’s case for reconsideration of the merits of her claim under 

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The record provided the Board includes evidence received after OWCP issued its March 25, 2016 decision. The 

Board’s review is limited to 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 

Appellant, a 72-year-old former mail processing clerk, has an accepted occupational 

disease claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and left hand/wrist tenosynovitis, which 

arose on or about February 21, 2012.3 She underwent an OWCP authorized right carpal tunnel 

release and flexor tenosynovectomy on April 20, 2015, followed by a left carpal tunnel release 

and flexor tenosynovectomy on July 27, 2015. Dr. Daniel P. Dare, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, performed both procedures. 

On January 22, 2016 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). 

By letter dated January 27, 2016, OWCP acknowledged receipt of appellant’s recent 

Form CA-7 and advised her that she needed to submit a detailed narrative report from her 

treating physician addressing whether she had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI), 

and if so, whether she had a permanent impairment. It further advised that the rating should be 

prepared in accordance with the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of 

Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides) (6th ed. 2009). OWCP afforded appellant at least 30 

days to submit the requested medical evidence in support of her schedule award claim. 

Appellant did not respond within the time allotted. 

By decision dated March 8, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule award. 

It noted that it had previously advised appellant of the need to submit evidence in support of her 

claim, but that no evidence of permanent impairment had been received. 

On March 18, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration. She submitted the appeal 

request form that accompanied OWCP’s March 8, 2016 decision. Appellant noted that “Dr. 

Dare has been out of the country so unable to submit requested information.” 

Following its March 8, 2016 decision, OWCP received additional copies of medical 

records regarding appellant’s July 27, 2015 left hand/wrist surgery. It also received duplicate 

copies of appellant’s right upper extremity physical therapy treatment records covering the 

period April 21 through July 22, 2015. 

In a March 25, 2016 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

without a merit review. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

Section 8107 of FECA sets forth the number of weeks of compensation to be paid for the 

permanent loss of use of specified members, functions and organs of the body.4

 FECA, 

however, does not specify the manner by which the percentage loss of a member, function or 

organ shall be determined. To ensure consistent results and equal justice under the law, good 

 3

 Effective December 31, 2015, appellant retired (nondisability). 

4

 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c). For a total or 100 percent loss of use of an arm, an employee shall receive 312 weeks’ 

compensation. 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c)(1). 
3

administrative practice requires the use of uniform standards applicable to all claimants. The 

implementing regulations have adopted the A.M.A., Guides as the appropriate standard for 

evaluating schedule losses.5 Effective May 1, 2009, schedule awards are determined in 

accordance with the A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2009).6

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

The Board finds that the evidence of record is insufficient to establish that appellant is 

entitled to a schedule award in accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and left 

hand/wrist tenosynovitis. Appellant underwent OWCP-approved surgeries on April 20 and 

July 27, 2015. She subsequently claimed a schedule award on January 22, 2016. In a letter 

dated January 27, 2016, OWCP informed appellant of the type of evidence needed to support her 

claim and requested that she submit such evidence within 30 days. However, appellant did not 

submit any evidence of permanent impairment as requested. Consequently, she has not provided 

medical evidence to establish that her accepted conditions caused a permanent impairment to a 

scheduled member. As such evidence has not been submitted, appellant has not established 

entitlement to a schedule award. 

Appellant may request a schedule award or increased schedule award based on evidence 

of a new exposure or medical evidence showing progression of an employment-related condition 

resulting in permanent impairment or increased impairment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

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

matter of right.7 OWCP has discretionary authority in this regard and has imposed certain 

limitations in exercising its authority.8 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.9 A timely application for reconsideration, including all supporting documents, must set 

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

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

 5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

6

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, 

Chapter 2.808.5a (February 2013); Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 1 (January 2010). 

7

 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 own motion or on application.” 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

8

 20 C.F.R. § 10.607. 

9 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’s decision for which review is sought. Supra note 6 at 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. 
4

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

considered by OWCP.10 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.11

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration on March 18, 2016. Appellant 

utilized the appeal request form that accompanied OWCP’s March 8, 2016 decision and included 

the handwritten notation “Dr. Dare has been out of the country so unable to submit requested 

information.” Although timely, her March 18, 2016 request for reconsideration neither alleged 

nor demonstrated that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law. 

Additionally, appellant did not advance any relevant legal arguments not previously considered 

by OWCP. The Board finds that she is not entitled to a review of the merits based on the first 

and second requirements under section 10.606(b)(3).12

Appellant also failed to submit any relevant and pertinent new evidence with her 

March 18, 2016 request for reconsideration. The issue on reconsideration was whether she had a 

ratable impairment of the upper extremities warranting a schedule award. OWCP denied 

appellant’s schedule award claim because she had not submitted any medical evidence 

demonstrating permanent impairment. Following the March 8, 2016 decision, it received 

additional copies of her physical therapy records, as well as duplicate copies of medical records 

regarding her July 27, 2015 left hand/wrist surgery. However, providing additional evidence that 

either repeats or duplicates information already in the record does not constitute a basis for 

reopening a claim.13 Because appellant failed to provide any relevant and pertinent new 

evidence regarding upper extremity permanent impairment, she is not entitled to a review of the 

merits based on the third requirement under section 10.606(b)(3).14 Accordingly, OWCP 

properly declined to reopen appellant’s case under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant failed to meet her burden of proof to establish a ratable 

impairment of the upper extremities warranting a schedule award. The Board further finds that 

OWCP properly declined to reopen appellant’s case for reconsideration of the merits of her claim 

under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 10 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

11 Id. at § 10.608(a), (b). 

12 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3)(i) and (ii). 

13 James W. Scott, 55 ECAB 606, 608 n.4 (2004). 

14 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3)(iii). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 25 and 8, 2016 decisions of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: March 7, 2017 

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