United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.B., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, 

St. Louis, MO, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0737 

Issued: June 27, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 3, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 20, 2016 nonmerit 

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

elapsed since the last merit decision dated August 24, 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 the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly refused 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

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 20, 2015 appellant, a 63-year-old program support assistant, filed an 

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

condition causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

With her claim, appellant submitted an April 15, 2014 report from Dr. Michelle Kane, 

Board-certified in internal medicine, who noted appellant’s complaints of bilateral hand pain. 

Dr. Kane noted that it was likely that appellant had bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, worse on 

the right side. OWCP also received an April 21, 2014 nerve conduction study from Dr. James 

Goldring, a Board-certified neurologist, which noted an impression of bilateral median 

neuropathy localized to the carpal tunnels. 

On June 8, 2015 OWCP advised appellant that it required factual and medical evidence to 

determine whether she was eligible for compensation benefits. It asked her to submit a 

comprehensive report from a treating physician describing her symptoms and the medical 

reasons for her condition, with an opinion as to whether her claimed condition was causally 

related to her federal employment. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit this evidence. 

In a July 6, 2015 report, received by OWCP on July 10, 2015, Dr. William K. Feinstein, 

Board-certified in orthopedic surgery, advised that appellant had symptoms of pain, numbness, 

and tingling in both hands. He reported that these symptoms had been present since 

February 2014 and that; the right side was worse than the left and her pain was waking her up at 

night. Dr. Feinstein noted that on examination provocative maneuvers for carpal tunnel 

syndrome were positive bilaterally. He advised that Tinel’s, Phalen’s, and median nerve 

compression tests were all positive bilaterally. Appellant also underwent electrodiagnostic 

studies which showed evidence of bilateral median neuropathies localized to the carpal tunnels. 

Dr. Feinstein diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. He recommended that appellant 

undergo surgery with open right carpal tunnel release surgery, to be followed two weeks later by 

open left carpal tunnel release surgery. Dr. Feinstein related that appellant’s job as a program 

support assistant required her to perform repetitious movements with her hands and use a 

keyboard and mouse repeatedly. Appellant was also required to flip through folders and search 

for documents on a daily basis, make boxes, separate and support records, place the records in 

the boxes, and perform other activities that involved constant turning and twisting of the wrists, 

as well as pulling with the hands. Dr. Feinstein advised that she lifted boxes, pushed carts, and 

delivered boxes at work. 

By decision dated August 24, 2015, OWCP denied the claim, finding that appellant failed 

to submit medical evidence establishing that she sustained a bilateral carpal tunnel condition 

causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

On November 30, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration. She resubmitted 

Dr. Feinstein’s July 6, 2015 report with a November 23, 2015 addendum. 

In the November 23, 2015 addendum, Dr. Feinstein related that, based upon his 

examination of appellant and her medical records, it was his opinion that appellant’s work 

activities were the prevailing factor in causing appellant’s medical condition. He noted that 
3

appellant had described work activities of making boxes, separating and supporting records, 

placing the records in the boxes, and performing other activities that involved constant turning 

and twisting of the wrists and pulling with the hands. Dr. Feinstein also noted that appellant had 

described heavier activities that would contribute to the development of carpal tunnel syndrome. 

By decision dated January 20, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s application for review as 

it neither raised substantive legal questions nor included relevant and pertinent new evidence 

sufficient to require OWCP to review its prior decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8128(a) of FECA vests OWCP with discretionary authority to determine whether 

it will review an award for or against compensation, either under its own authority or on 

application by a claimant.2

 Section 10.608(a) of OWCP’s regulations provide that a timely 

request for reconsideration may be granted if OWCP determines that the claimant has presented 

evidence and/or argument that meet at least one of the standards described in section 

10.606(b)(3).3

 This section provides that the application for reconsideration must be submitted 

in writing and set forth arguments and contain evidence that either: (i) shows that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; or (ii) advances a relevant legal 

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

evidence not previously considered by OWCP.4 Section 10.608(b) provides that when a request 

for reconsideration is timely filed, but fails to meet at least one of these three requirements, 

OWCP will deny the application for reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on 

the merits.5

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, appellant has not shown that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law; nor has she advanced a relevant legal argument not previously 

considered by OWCP, or constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously 

considered by OWCP. Appellant did submit an addendum report from Dr. Feinstein dated 

November 23, 2015. 

The Board has held that the submission of evidence which does not address the particular 

issue involved in the case does not constitute a basis for reopening the claim.6

 The issue in this 

case is medical; i.e., whether appellant submitted probative, rationalized medical evidence 

sufficient to establish that her claimed bilateral carpal tunnel condition was causally related to 

employment factors. Dr. Feinstein’s July 6, 2015 report was previously reviewed by OWCP. 

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(a). 

4 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3). 

5 Id. at § 10.606(b). 

6 See David J. McDonald, 50 ECAB 185 (1998). 
4

The Board finds that his addendum report of November 23, 2015 is cumulative and duplicative 

of his July 6, 2015 report.7 Dr. Feinstein merely reiterated appellant’s description of her 

employment duties. He offered no further explanation regarding causal relationship between 

appellant’s alleged carpal tunnel syndrome and these employment factors. 

Appellant’s reconsideration request failed to show that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a point of law nor did it advance a point of law or fact not previously considered by 

OWCP. The additional evidence submitted by appellant with her request for reconsideration did 

not constitute relevant and pertinent new evidence. The Board thus finds that OWCP did not 

abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen appellant’s claim for a review on the merits. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly refused to reopen appellant’s case for 

reconsideration on the merits of her claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 20, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs be affirmed. 

Issued: June 27, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, 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 

 7 See Patricia G. Aiken, 57 ECAB 441 (2006).