United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

K.V., Appellant, widow of K.V. 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Kansas City, MO, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1610 

Issued: July 3, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

On August 4, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 6, 2016 

merit decision and July 22, 2016 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2 (FECA) and 20 

C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case. 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish that the 

employee’s death on November 24, 2013 was causally related to factors of his federal 

employment; and (2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

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

 1

 In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An 

attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject 

to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation. 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 4, 2014 appellant, widow of the deceased employee, filed a claim for 

compensation by widow, widower, and/or children (Form CA-5) claiming entitlement to 

survivor benefits. Regarding the nature of the injury which caused death, she alleged that the 

employee’s federal job duties caused an acute myocardial infarction, which in turn caused his 

death on November 24, 2013.3

At the time of his death, the employee was a 53-year-old city carrier. On October 7, 2013 

the employee had filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2), under OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx001, claiming that he sustained occupational diseases of his back, shoulders, and elbows 

due to performing his repetitive work duties over time. He indicated that he first became aware 

of his claimed conditions on April 10, 1999 and first realized on an unspecified date in 1999 that 

they were caused or aggravated by his employment. The employee did not stop work around the 

time he filed his occupational disease claim and appellant indicated that he had worked in his job 

on the day prior to his November 24, 2013 death.4

 OWCP did not render a final decision on the 

employee’s occupational disease claim prior to his death. After appellant filed her claim for 

survivor benefits, it doubled the file for this claim into the file for her claim for survivor benefits. 

In connection with OWCP File No. xxxxxx001, the employee had submitted several statements 

from 2012 and 2013 in which he discussed the pain caused by his duties that required lifting, 

twisting, and extending his arms. Additionally, an April 26, 2012 echocardiogram showed 

ventricular dysfunction. 

Appellant submitted a death certificate completed on November 27, 2013 by Dr. Kenny 

Morohunfola, an attending Board-certified internist. Dr. Morohunfola listed the immediate 

causes of death as acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, and 

hypercholesterolemia. He also listed hypertension and congestive heart failure as contributing 

conditions. 

In a July 7, 2014 report, Dr. Morohunfola indicated that the employee became his patient 

around 1999 when he complained of back pain due to his work duties including lifting heavy 

loads, repetitive use of the upper extremities, twisting, climbing, and engaging in prolonged 

standing and walking. The employee also reported pain in his shoulders, elbows, and heels. 

Dr. Morohunfola noted that, on several occasions between 2008 and 2011, he recommended that 

the employee not work more than 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week, walk more than 100 

yards, lift more than 30 pounds intermittently, or engage in delivering mail.5

 He posited that the 

employee’s repetitive work duties caused a permanent aggravation of his back and shoulder 

conditions. Dr. Morohunfola noted that the conditions he diagnosed while the employee was 

under his care were degenerative joint disease of the back and shoulders, bulging discs, left 

 3

 Appellant indicated that she married the employee on August 4, 1979 and was married to him and living with 

him on the date of his death. She submitted a copy of their marriage license. 

4

 Appellant submitted an October 22, 2014 letter in which she described the employee’s activities and symptoms 

in the week prior to his death on November 24, 2013. She indicated that he reported that his job was very stressful 

and that he complained of increased back, neck, and upper extremity pain in the week before his death.(RD 11-3-14) 

5

 Dr. Morohunfola also recommended that the employee be allowed to sit on a stool while working. 
3

sciatica, rotator cuff syndrome, and bilateral plantar fasciitis. He indicated that, in early 2012, 

the employee developed shortness of breath and was diagnosed with congestive heart failure and 

cardiomyopathy.6 Dr. Morohunfola indicated, “For these reasons, it is my medical opinion that 

the strenuous nature of [the employee’s] postal duties contributed to the worsening of his cardiac 

symptoms, his eventual acute heart attack and resultant death in November, 2013.” 

In an October 10, 2014 letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional factual 

and medical evidence in support of her claim, including a medical report from a treating 

physician providing an opinion, with medical reasons, on the direct cause of the employee’s 

death. On October 10, 2014 it also requested that the employing establishment submit additional 

information. 

Appellant submitted medical evidence that was originally submitted in connection with 

the employee’s occupational disease claim. In October 4 and November 22, 2013 reports, 

Dr. Morohunfola noted that the employee had developed shortness of breath with moderate 

exertion several months prior and had been diagnosed with congestive heart failure and 

cardiomyopathy. Appellant also submitted other reports, dated between June 6 and 

November 19, 2014, in which Dr. Morohunfola discussed the employee’s back pain. 

The employing establishment advised OWCP that the employee had died while he was at 

church on November 24, 2013. 

In a January 14, 2015 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for survivor benefits 

finding that she had not established that the employee’s death on November 24, 2013 was 

causally related to factors of his federal employment. It noted that she had not established the 

factual aspect of her claim, i.e., she had not adequately identified the employment factors alleged 

to have contributed to a medical condition causing the employee’s death on November 24, 2013. 

OWCP also noted that the medical evidence of record, including the reports of Dr. Morohunfola, 

did not contain a rationalized medical opinion explaining how employment factors contributed to 

the employee’s worsening cardiac condition, acute myocardial infarction, and resultant death on 

November 24, 2013. 

On January 13, 2016 counsel requested reconsideration of the January 14, 2015 decision 

denying survivor benefits. He indicated that he was enclosing medical reports of Dr. Alec D. 

Weisberg, an attending Board-certified cardiologist who treated the employee’s heart problems, 

and a statement from appellant clarifying the circumstances of the employee’s death. 

In a May 8, 2012 report, Dr. Weisberg diagnosed the employee with cardiomyopathy, 

congestive heart failure, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, chronic kidney disease, and obesity. On 

June 12, 2012 he provided the additional diagnosed conditions of probable obstructive sleep 

apnea, asthma, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). In an October 1, 2012 report, 

Dr. Weisberg provided findings that were similar to those contained in his earlier reports. 

 6

 Dr. Morohunfola noted that, after the diagnosis of congestive heart failure, he wrote additional letters on the 

employee’s behalf recommending the same special accommodations he previously recommended. He indicated that 

the employee returned to the clinic on several occasions and reported that his work schedule remained very rigorous. 
4

In a January 13, 2016 statement, appellant reported that the employee died at home on 

November 24, 2013. She explained that he died at approximately 5:30 a.m. while getting ready 

for church, where he served as a pastor. 

The employing establishment submitted a city carrier position description. The position 

involved delivering and collecting mail on foot or by vehicle, and routing, casing, and sorting 

mail. Additionally, the city carrier position required lifting/carrying 10 to 35 pounds up to 8 

hours a day, intermittently lifting up to 70 pounds for 8 hours a day, standing 8 hours a day, 

walking 5 to 8 hours a day, climbing stairs intermittently 5 to 6 hours a day, bending and 

stooping intermittently 5 to 6 hours a day, twisting intermittently up to 8 hours a day, pulling and 

pushing intermittently 1 to 2 hours a day, simple grasping and fine manipulation continuously up 

to 8 hours a day, and reaching above shoulder height intermittently 2 to 3 hours per day. 

In an April 11, 2016 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for survivor benefits. It 

modified its January 14, 2015 decision to reflect that she had established employment factors 

experienced by the employee, including delivering and collecting mail on foot or by vehicle, and 

routing, casing, and sorting mail. However, OWCP found that appellant had not submitted 

sufficient medical evidence to establish that the employee’s death due to a cardiac condition on 

November 24, 2013 was employment related. 

On April 28, 2016 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of OWCP’s 

April 11, 2016 decision. Counsel argued that an enclosed April 21, 2016 report of 

Dr. Thomas A. Diggs, a Board-certified cardiologist, was at least sufficient to require further 

development of the medical evidence regarding whether the employee’s death on November 24, 

2013 was related to employment factors. 

In an April 21, 2016 report, Dr. Diggs indicated that he had reviewed the employee’s 

medical records, as well as a general summary of his city carrier duties. He noted that the 

employee had a history of significant cardiac disease in addition to other serious medical 

problems, which included morbid obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, chronic kidney disease, 

probable obstructive sleep apnea, asthma, and GERD. Dr. Diggs discussed the results of an 

April 26, 2012 echocardiogram and noted that, on May 8, 2012, Dr. Weisberg recommended a 

cardiac catheterization, but that it could not be successfully performed as the employee was 

unable to tolerate the procedure. He indicated that the decision was made to continue medical 

therapy at that time and to consider another attempt at an invasive cardiac catheterization in two 

to three months. The employee was seen again by Dr. Weisberg on October 1, 2012 and an 

echocardiogram revealed an improvement in his left ventricular function with an ejection 

fraction of 50 to 55 percent. Dr. Diggs indicated that the decision was made to continue medical 

therapy as the employee’s clinical condition had improved. Despite the medical therapy, the 

employee developed coronary artery disease and died from an acute myocardial infarction on 

November 24, 2013. 

In his April 21, 2016 report, Dr. Diggs further indicated that the employee’s own letter 

from 2013 outlined his chronic pain, stress, and anxiety. He noted that the employee was not 

reassigned to a different job despite the strong recommendations of Dr. Morohunfola. Dr. Diggs 

asserted that chronic severe pain, emotional stress, and anxiety have been shown to cause 

coronary artery disease and exacerbate symptoms in patients who have preexisting coronary 
5

artery disease. He indicated that the employee had chronic pain and noted that chronic pain 

leads to chronic anxiety and depression. Dr. Diggs noted that the metabolic syndrome which the 

employee had was also associated with chronic stress and anxiety. He indicated that 

psychological stress causes changes in the sympathetic-parasympathetic balance and the tone of 

the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, which might accelerate the atherosclerotic process or 

precipitate myocardial infarction, left ventricular dysfunction, or dysrhythmia. Dr. Diggs noted 

that anxiety worsens prognosis in patients with coronary disease in a dose-dependent manner 

with a higher risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction in the 516 patients studied in an 

outpatient cardiology clinic over a five-year period. He noted that it was his opinion that there 

was an industrial cause to the employee’s premature death from an acute myocardial infarction. 

Dr. Diggs indicated that the recurrent episodes of myocardial ischemia that the employee 

experienced performing his mail carrier duties, coupled with the chronic pain, and stress that he 

also suffered due to his work duties as a city carrier, contributed to his developing premature 

coronary artery disease, which precipitated his myocardial infarction and subsequent death. 

In a July 6, 2016 decision, OWCP denied modification of its April 11, 2016 decision. It 

found that Dr. Diggs had not provided a rationalized medical opinion relating the employee’s 

November 24, 2013 death to employment factors. OWCP noted that the evidence did not 

establish, as asserted by Dr. Diggs, that the employee had recurrent episodes of myocardial 

ischemia or chronic pain and stress related to his city carrier duties. 

On July 15, 2016 counsel again requested reconsideration. He argued that Dr. Diggs’ 

April 21, 2016 report was sufficiently well rationalized to establish that the employee sustained 

cardiac conditions due to employment factors, which in turn caused his death on 

November 24, 2013. Counsel also resubmitted several statements from 2012 and 2013 in which 

the employee discussed his work duties. 

In a decision dated July 22, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

of the merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). It found that the evidence and 

argument she had submitted was repetitious. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

The United States shall pay compensation for the disability or death of an employee 

resulting from personal injury sustained while in the performance of his or her duty.7 An award 

of compensation in a survivor’s claim may not be based on surmise, conjecture, or speculation or 

an appellant’s belief that the employee’s death was caused, precipitated, or aggravated by the 

employment.8 Appellant has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of the reliable, 

probative, and substantial medical evidence that the employee’s death was causally related to an 

employment injury or to factors of his employment.9

 This burden includes the necessity of 

furnishing rationalized medical opinion evidence of a cause and effect relationship, based on a 

 7

 5 U.S.C. § 8133(a). 

8 See Sharon Yonak (Nicholas Yonak), 49 ECAB 250 (1997). 

9 L.R. (E.R.), 58 ECAB 369 (2007). 
6

complete factual and medical background. The opinion of the physician must be one of 

reasonable medical certainty and must be supported by medical rationale.10 The mere showing 

that an employee was receiving compensation at the time of his or her death does not establish 

that his or her death was causally related to conditions resulting from the employment.11

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical 

evidence. Rationalized medical evidence is medical evidence which includes a physician’s 

rationalized medical opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship between an 

employee’s diagnosed conditions and the implicated employment factors. The opinion of the 

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

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

nature of the relationship between the employee’s death and the accepted conditions or 

employment factors identified by the employee.12

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

On August 4, 2014 appellant, widow of the deceased employee, filed a Form CA-5 

claiming entitlement to survivor benefits. Regarding the nature of the injury which caused death, 

she alleged that the employee’s job duties as a city carrier caused an acute myocardial infarction, 

which in turn caused his death on November 24, 2013. The November 27, 2013 death certificate 

listed the immediate causes of death as acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, and 

hypercholesterolemia. The death certificate also identified hypertension and congestive heart 

failure as contributing conditions. 

OWCP accepted that the employee’s city carrier duties included delivering and collecting 

mail on foot or by vehicle, and routing, casing, and sorting mail. However, it found that 

appellant failed to submit sufficient medical evidence to establish that employment duties 

contributed to the development of the employee’s heart disease, which led to his death on 

November 24, 2013.13

In a July 7, 2014 report, Dr. Morohunfola indicated that the employee became his patient 

around 1999 when he complained of back pain due to his work duties including lifting heavy 

loads, repetitive use of the upper extremities, twisting, climbing, and engaging in prolonged 

standing and walking. The employee also reported pain in his shoulders, elbows, and heels. 

Dr. Morohunfola noted that the conditions he diagnosed while the employee was under his care 

were degenerative joint disease of the back and shoulders, bulging discs, left sciatica, rotator cuff 

syndrome, and bilateral plantar fasciitis. He indicated that, in early 2012, the employee 

developed shortness of breath and was diagnosed with congestive heart failure and 

cardiomyopathy. Dr. Morohunfola noted that he wrote letters on the employee’s behalf 

recommending that special accommodations be made for him at work, but the employee returned 

 10 Id. 

11 Leonora A. Buco (Guido Buco), 36 ECAB 588, 594 (1985). 

12 Donna L. Mims, 53 ECAB 730 (2002). 

13 See S.L. (J.L.), Docket No. 15-0087 (issued April 15, 2015). 
7

to the clinic on several occasions and reported that his work schedule remained very rigorous. 

He noted, “For these reasons, it is my medical opinion that the strenuous nature of [the 

employee’s] postal duties contributed to the worsening of his cardiac symptoms, his eventual 

acute heart attack, and resultant death in November 24, 2013.” 

The Board notes that, while Dr. Morohunfola has provided an opinion that city carrier 

duties contributed to the employee’s death on November 24, 2013, he has not provided sufficient 

medical rationale in support of his opinion on causal relationship. The Board has held that a 

medical report is of limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship if it contains a 

conclusion regarding causal relationship which is unsupported by medical rationale.14 

Dr. Morohunfola failed to provide a sufficient medical explanation of how the described 

employment factors contributed to the employee’s death.15 He did not explain the medical 

process through which the employee’s preexisting cardiac condition could have been 

exacerbated by his specific work duties as a city carrier. Dr. Morohunfola only provided a 

general discussion of the employee’s work duties and of the nature of his cardiac condition. He 

did not explain why the employee’s death on November 24, 2013 was not entirely due to the 

natural progression of his multiple nonwork-related conditions. 

Appellant also submitted an April 21, 2016 report in which Dr. Diggs indicated that he 

had reviewed the medical records of the employee and the general summary of the city carrier 

duties. Dr. Diggs noted that the employee had a history of significant cardiac disease in addition 

to other serious medical problems which included morbid obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, 

chronic kidney disease, probable obstructive sleep apnea, asthma, and gastro-esophageal reflux 

disease. He discussed the medical treatment that the employee received for his cardiac problems. 

Dr. Diggs noted that it was his opinion that there was an industrial cause to the employee’s 

premature death from an acute myocardial infarction. He indicated that the recurrent episodes of 

myocardial ischemia that the employee experienced performing his mail carrier duties, coupled 

with the chronic pain and stress that he also suffered due to his work duties as a city carrier, 

contributed to his developing premature coronary artery disease, which precipitated his 

myocardial infarction and subsequent death. 

The Board finds that Dr. Diggs’ April 21, 2016 report is of limited probative value 

because he did not provide sufficient explanation for his conclusion on causal relationship.16 

The Board notes that Dr. Diggs did not adequately describe the medical process through which 

the employee’s work duties contributed to his ostensible recurrent episodes of myocardial 

ischemia and his reported chronic pain and stress. Importantly, Dr. Diggs did not adequately 

identify specific medical reports which indicated that the employee suffered recurrent episodes 

of myocardial ischemia, nor did he provide support for his suggestion that the employee 

developed an employment-related chronic pain/stress condition which contributed to the cardiac 

condition that led to his death on November 24, 2013. 

 14 C.M., Docket No. 14-0088 (issued April 18, 2014). 

15 See J.W. (F.W.), Docket No. 12-0778 (issued November 21, 2012). 

16 See Kathy Marshall (Dennis Marshall), 45 ECAB 827 (1994). 
8

Dr. Diggs spent a good portion of his April 21, 2016 report discussing general findings 

from journals regarding the role of pain and stress in accelerating cardiac disease. For example, he 

asserted that chronic severe pain, emotional stress, and anxiety have been shown to cause 

coronary artery disease and exacerbate symptoms in patients who have preexisting coronary 

artery disease. Dr. Diggs indicated that anxiety worsens the prognosis in patients with coronary 

disease in a dose dependent manner with a higher risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction 

in the 516 patients studied in an outpatient cardiology clinic over a five-year period. In essence, 

he suggested that the employee sustained a chain of employment-related conditions starting with 

some type of pain/stress-related condition which in turn led to exacerbation of coronary artery 

disease and a myocardial infarction. Dr. Diggs’ description of such a process is vague and lacks 

specific, detailed references to the medical evidence of record.17 The Board has held that medical 

texts and excerpts from publications are of little evidentiary value in establishing the necessary 

causal relationship between a claimed condition and employment factors because such materials 

are of general application and are not determinative of whether the specifically claimed condition 

is related to the particular employment factors alleged by the employee.18 Dr. Diggs did not 

adequately explain the specific medical process through which the employee’s duties affected the 

cardiac condition that contributed to his death.19

For these reasons, the Board finds that appellant has not established that the employee’s 

death on November 24, 2013 was related to work factors and OWCP properly denied her claim for 

survivor benefits. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128(a) of FECA,20

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 

 17 The Board further notes that it has reviewed the medical evidence produced prior to the employee’s death on 

November 24, 2013, including the reports of Dr. Weisberg, but that this evidence does not contain any opinion that 

the employee sustained an employment-related cardiac or pain/stress condition. 

18 William C. Bush, 40 ECAB 1064, 1075 (1989). 

19 Dr. Diggs’ recitation of general findings from journals suggests that he also felt that the employee developed an 

emotional condition related to a pain condition suffered as a result of his city carrier duties. However, he did not 

provide a clear opinion in this regard and the Board notes that no such condition was claimed by the employee prior to 

his death. On appeal, counsel argues that the April 21, 2016 report of Dr. Diggs is at least sufficient to require 

further development of the medical evidence regarding whether the employee’s death on November 24, 2013 was 

related to employment factors. However, the Board has explained why Dr. Diggs’ report is of limited probative 

value with respect to the main issue of the present case. 

20 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). 
9

pertinent new evidence not previously considered by OWCP.21 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.22 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.23 The Board has held that the submission of evidence or argument 

which repeats or duplicates evidence or argument already in the case record24 and the submission 

of evidence or argument which does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a 

basis for reopening a case.25 While a reopening of a case may be predicated solely on a legal 

premise not previously considered, such reopening is not required where the legal contention 

does not have a reasonable color of validity.26 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

The issue presented on appeal is whether appellant met any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3), requiring OWCP to reopen the case for review of the merits of the claim. 

In her July 2015 application for reconsideration, appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously 

applied or interpreted a specific point of law. She did not identify a specific point of law or show 

that it was erroneously applied or interpreted, nor did she advance a new and relevant legal 

argument not previously considered by OWCP. Appellant’s argument, made through counsel, 

was that Dr. Diggs’ April 21, 2016 report was sufficiently well rationalized to establish that the 

employee sustained cardiac conditions due to employment factors, which in turn caused his death 

on November 24, 2013. However, she had previously presented this same argument through 

counsel and OWCP had already considered and rejected it. The Board has held that the 

submission of evidence or argument which repeats or duplicates evidence or argument already in 

the case record does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.27 A claimant may be entitled to a 

merit review by submitting relevant pertinent new evidence, but appellant did not submit any 

such evidence in this case.28 Appellant also submitted several statements from 2012 and 2013 in 

which the employee discussed his work duties, but these statements were previously of record. 

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. 

 21 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

22 Id. at § 10.607(a). 

23 Id. at § 10.608(b). 

24 Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984); Jerome Ginsberg, 32 ECAB 31, 33 (1980). 

25 Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224, 225 (1979). 

26 John F. Critz, 44 ECAB 788, 794 (1993). 

27 See supra note 24. 

28 See supra note 21. 
10

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that the 

employee’s death on November 24, 2013 was causally related to factors of his federal 

employment. The Board further finds that OWCP properly denied her request for 

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

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 22 and 6, 2016 decisions of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: July 3, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board