United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.F., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PRAIRIE VILLAGE 

BRANCH, Shawnee, KS, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1233 

Issued: November 23, 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 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 25, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 4, 2016 nonmerit decision 

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

from the issuance of the last merit decision on May 28, 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 to review the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly refused to reopen appellant’s case for further 

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

On appeal appellant contends that his physician did not provide a description of his work 

activities because his work duties were already described in the statement of accepted facts 

(SOAF). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 1, 2014 appellant, then a 44-year-old carrier technician, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2), alleging that he developed tendinitis as a result of his 

federal employment duties. He did not provide a description of any specific employment duties. 

Appellant did not stop work. 

By letter dated January 20, 2015, OWCP informed appellant that further information was 

necessary to support his claim, and afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

In response, appellant submitted an October 23, 2014 progress note from Dr. Jeffrey M. 

Kaplan, a neurologist, noting that he had treated appellant for carpal tunnel syndrome. 

Dr. Kaplan concluded that appellant’s carpal tunnel syndrome was directly related to his work 

for the employing establishment. 

Appellant also submitted his response to OWCP’s questionnaire. He explained that the 

factors of his employment which contributed to his carpal tunnel syndrome included locking, 

unlocking, and starting his vehicle multiple times every day, placing mail in slots, scanning 

parcels, entering tracing numbers, lifting heavy trays, pushing and maneuvering hampers 

weighing over 100 pounds, and gripping mail. 

By letter dated March 30, 2015, OWCP asked Dr. Kaplan to review a SOAF which 

described appellant’s duties, and asked him whether appellant’s work factors caused, aggravated, 

or accelerated his carpal tunnel syndrome. In a response dated April 7, 2015, Dr. Kaplan 

checked a box marked “yes” indicating a causal relationship. 

By decision dated May 28, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

medical evidence of record did not establish that the claimed medical condition was causally 

related to the accepted factors of employment. The decision noted that appellant’s physician had 

not explained how appellant’s work factors caused or contributed to his diagnosed condition 

based on an accurate factual and medical background. 

On January 6, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration. In support of his request for 

reconsideration, he submitted a letter dated October 12, 2015 in which he alleged that his doctor 

signed a form that established causal relationship between the accepted factors of his federal 

employment and his injury. Appellant also submitted a June 11, 2015 letter wherein Dr. Kaplan 

indicated that he was unsure why OWCP did not receive his response to its letter, and reiterated 

his belief that appellant’s carpal tunnel was directly related to his work at the employing 

establishment. 

By decision dated April 4, 2016, OWCP denied reconsideration as it found that the 

evidence was insufficient to warrant review of the May 28, 2015 decision which denied 

appellant’s claim. 
3

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 

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’s application for review must 

be received 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 

OWCP found that appellant had established that he experienced the employment factors 

as alleged. Appellant also submitted medical evidence of a diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. 

However, OWCP denied his claim as he had not submitted rationalized medical evidence 

establishing a causal relationship between his carpal tunnel syndrome and the accepted duties of 

his federal employment. In the merit decision of May 28, 2015, it explained that appellant’s 

physician did not explain how appellant’s employment activities caused his medical condition. 

The Board finds that appellant has not shown that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law, has not advanced a relevant legal argument not previously 

considered by OWCP, and has not submitted relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously 

considered by OWCP. 

The underlying issue in this case is whether appellant submitted rationalized medical 

evidence supporting causal relationship between his alleged employment duties and his 

diagnosed condition. In his request for reconsideration, appellant argued that Dr. Kaplan had 

signed a form establishing causal relationship. His argument did not show that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law, and did not advance a relevant legal 

argument which had not been considered by OWCP. OWCP had previously considered 

Dr. Kaplan’s medical opinion regarding causal relationship and found that it lacked sufficient 

medical rationale in support of a causation finding. 

The only new evidence submitted by appellant with his reconsideration request was the 

June 11, 2015 letter from Dr. Kaplan. Dr. Kaplan again repeated his unrationalized opinion 

regarding causal relationship. This opinion was not relevant and pertinent new evidence. 

Rather, it was repetitive of his October 23, 2014 progress note and his April 7, 2015 form 

response. The Board has found that evidence which is repetitive, duplicative, or cumulative in 

 2 Id. 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 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

4 Id. at § 10.607(a). 

5 Id. at § 10.608(b). 
4

nature is insufficient to warrant reopening a claim for merit review.6 Accordingly, this report is 

not sufficient to warrant further merit review. 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for further merit 

review.7

CONCLUSION 

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

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

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated April 4, 2016 is affirmed. 

Issued: November 23, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 6 J.B., Docket No. 14-1164 (issued November 20, 2014); Denis M. Dupor, 51 ECAB 482 (2000). 

7 See L.H., 59 ECAB 253 (2007).