United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.K., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, 

Minneapolis, MN, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0830 

Issued: August 2, 2017 

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 March 3, 2017 appellant filed a timely application for review from a September 28, 

2016 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). As more 

than 180 days elapsed from May 4, 2016, the date of the most recent merit decision, 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 to review the merits of appellant’s claim. 

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

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 10, 2016 appellant, then a 60-year-old medical support assistant, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained bilateral carpal tunnel 

syndrome as a result of repetitive chart preparation. She first became aware of her condition and 

of its relationship to factors of her federal employment on May 1, 2014. The claim form did not 

indicate that appellant stopped work. 

In an incident report dated May 1, 2014, a supervisor noted that appellant had 

experienced pain and numbness in her hands, and that her duties had been changed as a 

corrective action. 

By letter dated March 16, 2016, OWCP informed appellant of the evidence needed to 

establish her claim, and noted that she had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish her 

claim. It afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence to the record and to respond to its 

inquiries. 

Appellant submitted a narrative statement dated March 21, 2016 describing her federal 

employment duties alleged to have caused her condition, noting that her duties had changed in 

May 2014 requiring preparation of more pages per chart for each patient. 

In a letter dated March 15, 2016, Dr. Timothy Kleinschmidt, a Board-certified internist, 

diagnosed appellant with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. He stated that she worked with 

medical records, involving sorting and preparation of charts with hundreds of sheets of paper per 

day. Appellant experienced increased numbness, pain, and lack of coordination during this 

activity. Dr. Kleinschmidt suggested that she undergo electromyography (EMG) testing. He 

noted that appellant’s onset of symptoms was on May 1, 2014 and opined that “this is likely 

occupation related.” Dr. Kleinschmidt further related that she required surgical consultation. 

By decision dated May 4, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation. It 

found that she had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish causal relationship 

between her accepted federal employment duties and her claimed carpal tunnel syndrome. 

By letter dated May 21, 2016, received by OWCP on May 31, 2016, appellant requested 

reconsideration of the May 4, 2016 OWCP decision. With her request, appellant attached a letter 

that referred to a May 19, 2016 letter from Dr. Kleinschmidt, a report from a Dr. Wallerstein, and 

results of EMG testing. However, none of these documents were received by OWCP. 

By decision dated September 28, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration. It found that she had not submitted any evidence or legal arguments not 

previously considered in support of her request. OWCP noted that the documents that appellant 

referred to in her request were not received by OWCP. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128(a), OWCP’s 

regulations provide that the evidence or argument submitted by a claimant must: (1) show that 

OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advance a relevant legal 
3

argument not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitute relevant and pertinent new 

evidence not previously considered by OWCP.2

 Section 10.608(b) of OWCP’s regulations 

provide that when an application for reconsideration does not meet at least one of the three 

requirements enumerated under section 10.606(b)(3), OWCP will deny the application for 

reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on the merits.3

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration, 

without further merit review of the claim. 

With her May 21, 2016 request for reconsideration appellant attached a letter that referred 

to a May 19, 2016 letter from Dr. Kleinschmidt, a report from a Dr. Wallerstein, and results of 

EMG testing. 

Appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of 

law, or advance a new and relevant legal argument not previously considered. Thus, she is not 

entitled to a review of the merits of her claim based on the first and second above-noted 

requirements under section 10.606(b)(3). 

The underlying issue is whether appellant has submitted sufficient well-rationalized 

medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between her claimed carpal tunnel syndrome 

and duties of her federal employment. A claimant may be entitled to a merit review by 

submitting pertinent new and relevant evidence, but appellant did not submit any such evidence 

in this claim. In her request for reconsideration, appellant referred specifically to reports from 

Dr. Kleinschmidt, Dr. Wallerstein, and results of EMG testing. However, as OWCP noted, none 

of these reports were received. As such, appellant did not submit any medical evidence on 

reconsideration relevant to the underlying reason her claim was denied on May 4, 2016, and did 

not meet any of the requirements to warrant reconsideration of her claim. 

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. 

CONCLUSION 

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

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

 2

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); D.K., 59 ECAB 141, 146 (2007). 

3 Id. at § 10.608(b); see K.H., 59 ECAB 495, 499 (2008). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated September 28, 2016 is affirmed. 

Issued: August 2, 2017 

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