United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.W., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL 

PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, 

Raleigh, NC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1890 

Issued: February 11, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 5, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 18, 2014 merit decision 

and a July 16, 2014 nonmerit decision 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 to review the merits of this case. 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether performing overtime work in evenings and occasionally on 

weekends caused or aggravated a diagnosed condition; and (2) whether OWCP properly denied 

appellant’s reconsideration request. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On a prior appeal,2 the Board found a compensable factor of employment. Appellant, a 

54-year-old financial technician/budget analyst, filed an occupational disease claim alleging that 

his Graves’ disease, anxiety and major depression disorder, panic attacks, and post-traumatic 

stress disorder were a result of his federal employment. He attributed these conditions primarily 

to his interaction with a senior budget analyst, but he failed to submit independent evidence 

establishing that this senior budget analyst committed a specific administrative error or abuse in 

dealing with him. Appellant also implicated his workload. The Board found no evidence of a 

hiring freeze, personnel shortage, added workloads, or unexpected deadlines and meetings. 

A supervisor confirmed, however, that appellant did perform overtime work in evenings 

and occasionally on weekends. The Board found that this established a compensable factor of 

employment under Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976). The Board remanded the case to 

OWCP for a review of the medical opinion evidence on the issue of causal relationship. 

On remand, in a decision dated October 30, 2013, OWCP reviewed the medical evidence 

and could find no opinion from any physician establishing that the employment factor caused or 

affected the conditions claimed.3 

By appeal form dated November 7, 2013, appellant requested a review of the written 

record by an OWCP hearing representative. He submitted an October 30, 2013 note from a 

licensed clinical social worker. Appellant described stress and anxiety related to his interaction 

with coworkers, lack of focus, and concentration requiring him to work during the evening and 

weekends, his professionalism and ability to complete job tasks being challenged and questioned 

on an ongoing basis, which created tension for at least one year prior to presenting to the 

psychiatric emergency clinic. The report concluded: “Based upon [appellant’s] presentation 

during individual sessions his exacerbations of symptoms are more likely than not contributed by 

his work environment.” 

On April 18, 2014 an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the denial of appellant’s 

claim. He found no report from a qualified physician containing a well-reasoned opinion 

explaining how any of his emotional conditions were caused or contributed to by the accepted 

performance of overtime work in evenings and occasionally on weekends. Accordingly, the 

hearing representative found that appellant failed to establish the essential element of causal 

relationship. 

 2

 Docket No. 13-399 (issued September 26, 2013). 

3

 OWCP prepared a statement of accepted facts listing the following events as accepted factors of employment: 

hiring freeze, personnel shortages, added workloads, having to work overtime and weekends to keep up with his 

tasks and reports, unexpected deadlines and meetings, and senior budget analyst demands. The Board’s prior 

decision, however, made clear that the evidence established only one compensable factor of employment: appellant 

performed overtime work in evenings and occasionally on weekends. The Board found no evidence of a hiring 

freeze, personnel shortage, added workloads, or unexpected deadlines and meetings. The Board also found no 

independent evidence establishing that the senior budget analyst committed a specific administrative error or abuse 

in dealing with appellant. The accepted events in OWCP’s statement of accepted facts are thus inconsistent with the 

findings of the Board. 
3

By letter dated May 1, 2014, received by OWCP on May 6, 2014, appellant requested 

reconsideration. He argued that two physicians of record were qualified physicians whose 

opinions required reconsideration. Appellant again submitted the October 30, 2013 note from 

the licensed clinical social worker. Receipt of this copy, however, was acknowledged by the 

electronic signature of another licensed clinical social worker and Dr. Alexandra L. Spessot, a 

Board-certified psychiatrist. 

In a decision dated July 16, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s reconsideration request. It 

found that the October 30, 2013 report was repetitious of evidence previously considered. 

“Specifically, this report is an exact duplicate of a report that was used to make a previous 

determination in your case.” 

Appellant believes that he has provided sufficient evidence signed by a qualified 

physician that his conditions are work related. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

FECA provides compensation for the disability of an employee resulting from personal 

injury sustained while in the performance of duty.4 An employee seeking benefits under FECA 

has the burden of proof to establish the essential elements of his or her claim. When an 

employee claims that he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty, he or she must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she experienced a specific event, incident or 

exposure occurring at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. He or she must also establish 

that such event, incident, or exposure caused an injury.5

Causal relationship is a medical issue,6 and the medical evidence generally required to 

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. The opinion of the 

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant,7 must be 

one of reasonable medical certainty,8 and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the 

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the established incident or factor 

of employment.9

The Board has held that certain health care providers, such as a physician’s assistant, 

nurse practitioner, physical therapist, or social worker, are not defined as “physicians” under 

 4

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

5 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

6 Mary J. Briggs, 37 ECAB 578 (1986). 

7 William Nimitz, Jr., 30 ECAB 567, 570 (1979). 

8 Morris Scanlon, 11 ECAB 384, 385 (1960). 

9 William E. Enright, 31 ECAB 426, 430 (1980). 
4

FECA. Consequently, their reports are of no probative medical value for purposes of 

establishing a claim under FECA.10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

As the Board found on the prior appeal, the evidence established only one compensable 

factor of employment, namely, that appellant performed overtime work in the evening and 

occasionally on weekends. The question presented on this appeal is whether this factor of 

employment caused or aggravated any of his diagnosed conditions. 

The Board has reviewed the medical evidence and can find no discussion or explanation 

from a qualified physician of how performing overtime work in the evening and occasionally on 

weekends caused or aggravated any of appellant’s diagnosed conditions. Progress notes 

typically relate the history appellant provided, which included a number of employment factors 

that are not established to be compensable. There was no well-reasoned professional opinion on 

whether the accepted condition caused or aggravated a diagnosed condition. 

The October 30, 2013 note from a licensed clinical social worker concluded that the 

exacerbations of appellant’s symptoms were more likely than not contributed by his work 

environment, based on his presentation during individual sessions. However, it was not signed 

by a qualified physician, as a licensed clinical social worker is not a physician as defined under 

FECA,11 this report does not constitute competent evidence.12

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

OWCP may review an award for or against payment of compensation at any time on its 

own motion or upon application.13 An employee (or representative) seeking reconsideration 

should send the request for reconsideration to the address as instructed by OWCP in the final 

decision. The request for reconsideration, including all supporting documents, must be in 

writing, and must set forth arguments and contain evidence that either: (1) shows that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advances a relevant legal argument 

not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not 

previously considered by OWCP.14

A request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of 

OWCP decision for which review is sought.15 A timely request for reconsideration may be 

granted if OWCP determines that the employee has presented evidence or argument that meets at 

 10 E.g., S.T., Docket No. 14-895 (issued November 4, 2014). 

11 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); see also T.C., Docket No. 14-1375 (issued November 5, 2014). 

12 K.W., Docket No. 07-1669 (issued December 13, 2007). 

13 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

14 20 C.F.R. § 10.606. 

15 Id. at § 10.607(a). 
5

least one of these standards. If reconsideration is granted, the case is reopened and the case is 

reviewed on its merits. Where the request is timely but fails to meet at least one of these 

standards, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without reopening the case for a 

review on the merits.16

Evidence that repeats or duplicates evidence already in the record has no evidentiary 

value and constitutes no basis for reopening a case.17 Evidence that does not address the 

particular issue involved also constitutes no basis for reopening a case.18

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

OWCP received appellant’s reconsideration request within one year of the hearing 

representative’s April 18, 2014 merit decision. The request is therefore timely. The question to 

be determined is whether that request met at least one of the standards for obtaining a merit 

review. 

Appellant’s request did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific 

point of law. The request did not advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered 

by OWCP. Appellant argued that two physicians of record were qualified physicians, but that 

alone is insufficient to reopen his case. For the argument to be relevant, he must show that these 

physicians had offered a well-reasoned opinion on whether performing overtime work in 

evenings and occasionally on weekends caused or aggravated a diagnosed condition. The Board 

can find no such opinion. 

A claimant may be entitled to a merit review by submitting relevant and pertinent new 

evidence not previously considered by OWCP. Appellant did submit a copy of the October 30, 

2013 note from the licensed clinical social worker. Although the content of the note was 

identical to the note previously considered, it now bore the electronic signature of a qualified 

physician, Dr. Spessot, a Board-certified psychiatrist. With this signature, Dr. Spessot 

acknowledged receipt of the note and nothing more. She did not endorse the opinion offered 

therein, or otherwise indicate her concurrences. 

Accordingly, as appellant’s reconsideration request did not meet any of the requirements 

for reopening the merits of his case, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied a merit review. 

The Board will affirm OWCP’s July 16, 2014 decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden to establish that performing 

overtime work in evenings and occasionally on weekends caused or aggravated a diagnosed 

condition. The Board also finds that OWCP properly denied his reconsideration request. 

 16 Id. at § 10.608. 

17 Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393 (1984); Bruce E. Martin, 35 ECAB 1090 (1984). 

18 Jimmy O. Gilmore, 37 ECAB 257 (1985); Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224 (1979). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 16 and April 18, 2014 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: February 11, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board