United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.S., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, 

San Diego, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1635 

Issued: September 22, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 9, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 24, 2016 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from the last merit decision, dated March 18, 2015, 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 this case. 

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). 

On appeal appellant contends that she submitted a report from a physician who opined 

that her carpal tunnel syndrome and de Quervain’s syndrome of her right hand had been caused 

by her employment duties. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 4, 2015 appellant, then a 27-year-old health aid, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained an injury to her right thumb, right hand, and right 

wrist. She noted that she had been diagnosed with tendinitis and carpal tunnel syndrome. 

Appellant indicated that she performed a lot of repetitive hand motions during her employment 

while completing blood draws, and these repetitive motions mainly involved her thumb and 

wrist. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a statement indicating that she had worked as 

a phlebotomist at the hospital since May 2011, and she described her duties working with the 

vacutainer. She stated that on a busy day she could assist as many as 50 patients, and on a slow 

day about 10 patients. Appellant noted that her condition developed over the course of a few 

months. 

Appellant also submitted a December 11, 2014 attending physician’s report (Form CA16) from Dr. Robert M. Maywood, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, wherein he indicated 

that appellant told him that she was drawing blood from a patient and felt a sharp pain while 

popping and pulling the tube off. Dr. Maywood diagnosed right wrist de Quervain’s and carpal 

tunnel syndrome, and checked a box indicating the he believed that the condition was caused or 

aggravated by her employment activity. He restricted appellant to left-handed work only. In a 

work status form completed on the same date, Dr. Maywood indicated that appellant would be 

able to resume regular work on December 24, 2014. In a January 5, 2015 report, he returned 

appellant to modified duty effective January 5 through February 2, 2015. 

On March 16 and 18, 2015 OWCP also received a duplicate copy of Dr. Maywood’s 

December 11, 2014 report. 

By decision dated March 18, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that the 

medical evidence of record did not establish that the diagnosed conditions were related to the 

established employment-related events. 

On March 17, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration. She did not submit any new 

evidence with her reconsideration request. 

By decision dated May 24, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s reconsideration request 

without conducting a merit review. It found that appellant’s request for reconsideration neither 

raised substantive legal questions nor included relevant and pertinent new evidence. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128(a) of FECA,2

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 

 2 Under section 8128 of FECA, “[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). 
3

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

pertinent new evidence not previously considered by OWCP.3 To be entitled to a merit review 

of an OWCP decision denying or terminating a benefit, a claimant also must file his or her 

application for review within one year of the date of that decision.4

 When a claimant fails to 

meet one of the above standards, OWCP will deny the application for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for review on the merits.5

 

ANALYSIS 

In a decision dated March 18, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as she had not 

established causal relationship between her accepted factors of federal employment and her 

diagnosed medical condition. Appellant requested reconsideration on March 17, 2016. 

OWCP reviewed appellant’s request for reconsideration under the appropriate criteria for 

timely filed reconsideration petitions. Appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law, and she did not advance a relevant legal argument not 

previously considered by OWCP. 

The Board also finds that appellant did not submit relevant and pertinent evidence not 

previously considered by OWCP. Appellant did not submit any evidence with her 

reconsideration request. Although the copy of Dr. Maywood’s December 11, 2014 form report 

was received by OWCP on the same date as the last merit decision, this was a copy of a report 

that had been previously submitted. Evidence or arguments that are duplicative, cumulative, or 

repetitive in nature are insufficient to warrant reopening a claim for merit review.6

 

On appeal appellant contends that she submitted a report on reconsideration wherein the 

doctor indicated that her carpal tunnel syndrome and de Quervain’s were related to her federal 

employment. However, as explained above, no new evidence was received with appellant’s 

reconsideration request. 

The Board accordingly finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Therefore, 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). 

 3 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

4 Id. at § 10.607(a). 

5 Id. at § 10.608(b). 

6 Denis M. Dupor, 51 ECAB 482 (2000). 
4

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated May 24, 2016 is affirmed. 

Issued: September 22, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board