United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.J., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Cleveland, OH, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0614 

Issued: June 13, 2017 

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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 25, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 10, 2017 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from the last merit decision, dated July 20, 2016, 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 claim. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

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

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 22, 2010 appellant, then a 43-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she sustained right foot, calf, knee, and hip pain as well as 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

elbow, shoulder, and neck pain on the right when she struck a rail while driving a forklift. The 

employing establishment had no work available for appellant beginning October 17, 2010. On 

November 29, 2010 OWCP accepted her claim for right muscle spasm. It authorized 

compensation benefits from October 17 through November 25, 2010 and December 25, 2010 

through February 16, 2011. Appellant returned to work on February 17, 2011. She last received 

medical treatment for her accepted employment injuries on June 13, 2011. 

The claim was essentially dormant until 2014. On November 21, 2014 appellant filed a 

recurrence claim (Form CA-2a) alleging that on October 3, 2014 she sustained chronic flare-ups 

of muscle and joint pain during bad weather. She attributed her condition to driving a tow motor 

on a continuous daily basis on concrete floors with cracks and dips. Appellant listed her 

conditions after returning to work as tenderness on the right side of her neck, pain and tenderness 

in the right shoulder, knee, ankle, thigh, calf, lower back, and groin. 

With her claim, appellant submitted a report from Dr. Uche G. Iheme, a Board-certified 

internist, who examined her on October 6, 2014 due to right-sided pain. He diagnosed right hip 

pain and multiple joint complaints. 

In a letter dated February 24, 2015, OWCP requested that appellant provide additional 

factual and medical evidence in support of her recurrence claim. It afforded her 30 days to 

respond. No additional evidence was received. 

By decision dated March 31, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence claim. It found 

that she had described a set of occupational factors, including driving a tow motor, as causing a 

renewed need for medical treatment. OWCP informed appellant that this claim was indicative of 

a new occupational disease and not a recurrence. It created a new occupational disease claim 

and denied her claim for recurrence as she had not established that she required additional 

medical treatment due to a worsening of her accepted work-related conditions without an 

intervening cause. 

Appellant submitted a July 28, 2015 duty status report from Dr. Iheme diagnosing 

tenderness of the right side of the body and indicating that her diagnosis was nonspecific. 

Dr. Iheme found that she was capable of full-duty work. 

On January 22, 2016 appellant requested a change of physicians from Dr. Iheme to 

Dr. Audley Mackel, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. 

Appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s March 31, 2015 decision on 

February 17, 2016. She noted that her husband was a physical therapist and he had treated her. 

Appellant described her work duties of driving across potholes and cracks in the workplace floor 

which aggravated the pain of her prior injuries. She asserted that the majority of the cracks in 

the floor were near her work station. Appellant requested that the employing establishment 

repair the floor. She asserted that her pain had been consistent since she returned to work on 

February 16, 2011. Appellant listed additional injuries, including trigger thumb and left wrist 

injuries from a June 12, 2012 motor vehicle accident, and pallets falling on her right calf and 

ankle on December 4, 2015. 
3

Appellant provided additional medical evidence. Dr. Iheme completed a form report on 

January 24, 2011. He found tenderness on palpation in the right shoulder, right hip, and right 

ankle. Dr. Iheme diagnosed generalized body pains and fibromyalgia. He indicated by checking 

a box marked “yes” on a form report that appellant’s condition was caused or aggravated by her 

employment activities. 

On March 2, 2011 appellant visited Dr. Soumya Chatterjee, a Board-certified 

rheumatologist, who diagnosed myalgia and myositis, disorders of the sacrum, disorders of the 

bursae and tendons in the shoulder, and cervicalgia. 

In a note dated September 28, 2011, Dr. Michael Walker, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, reported examining appellant due to pain in her right hand and triggering of the right 

thumb. He noted that she operated a forklift and could not relate the onset of her hand problems 

to any particular injury. Dr. Walker diagnosed right trigger thumb and mild carpal tunnel 

syndrome. He also diagnosed cervicalgia, disorders of the bursae and tendons in the shoulder 

region, lateral epicondylitis, generalized osteoarthrosis, myofascial pain syndrome, generalized 

muscle weakness, and chest pain. On October 7, 2011 Dr. Walker found that appellant’s right 

thumb pain had improved, but recommended surgery. 

Dr. John M. Hickner, a Board-certified family practitioner, examined appellant on July 2, 

2012 due to her wrist condition. He noted that appellant had a history of left radial styloid 

tenosynovitis, but her x-rays demonstrated mild soft tissue swelling. 

On April 2, 2013 Dr. Iheme examined appellant due to pain in the right big toe nail bed. 

In a letter dated February 22, 2016, OWCP authorized appellant’s change of physicians. 

It requested a detailed medical report from Dr. Mackel. 

By decision dated July 20, 2016, OWCP reviewed the merits of appellant’s claim, but 

denied modification of its prior decision. It again noted that she had identified new work factors, 

an intervening injury, and had not established a recurrence of disability. 

Appellant again requested reconsideration of OWCP’s July 20, 2016 decision on 

October 17, 2016. She asserted that she was submitting additional medical evidence. Appellant 

resubmitted Dr. Iheme’s July 28, 2015 duty status report. She also submitted a note dated 

September 29, 2016 from Dr. Iheme listing her treatments from March 2014 through 

September 2016. Dr. Iheme indicated that on June 9, 2014 he evaluated and treated right wrist 

tendinitis, on November 18, 2014 he had evaluated and treated chronic myofascial pain, on 

June 29, 2015 he had evaluated and treated right hip pain, on September 29, 2015 he had 

evaluated and treated right shoulder pain, on November 2, 2015 he evaluated and treated pain on 

the right side of the body, and on March 29, 2916 he evaluated and treated myofascial pain 

syndrome. On October 13, 2016 he completed a duty status report and diagnosed tenderness on 

the right side of the body. Dr. Iheme indicated that appellant could perform regular-duty work. 

By decision dated January 10, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration of the merits of her claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

FECA provides in section 8128(a) that OWCP may review an award for or against 

payment of compensation at any time on its own motion or on application by the claimant.2

 

Section 10.606(b)(3) of the Code of Federal Regulations provides that a claimant may obtain 

review of the merits of the claim by submitting in writing an application for reconsideration 

which sets forth arguments or evidence and shows that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted 

a specific point of law; or advances a relevant legal argument not previously considered by 

OWCP; or includes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by OWCP.3 

Section 10.608 of OWCP’s regulations provides that when a request for reconsideration is 

timely, but does meet at least one of these three requirements, OWCP will deny the application 

for review without reopening the case for a review on the merits.4

 Section 10.607(a) of OWCP’s 

regulations provides that to be considered timely an application for reconsideration must be 

received by OWCP within one year of the date of OWCP’s merit decision for which review is 

sought.5

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

issue involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.6 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 under 5 U.S.C. 8128(a).7 

ANALYSIS 

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). 

On November 29, 2010 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for right muscle spasm. On 

November 21, 2014 appellant filed a claim for a recurrence of disability and attributed her 

current conditions to driving a tow motor over potholes and cracks in the employing 

establishment floor. OWCP found that she had implicated additional employment duties and 

 2 Id. at § 8128(a). 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

4 Id. at § 10.608. 

5 Id. at § 10.607(a). Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations ̧ Chapter 2.1602.4 

(February 2016). 

6 B.T., Docket No. 16-0785 (issued September 21, 2016); Ronald A. Eldridge, 53 ECAB 218 (2001); Alan G. 

Williams, 52 ECAB 180 (2000). 

7 See M.H., Docket No. 16-1382 (issued December 5, 2016); Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984). 
5

denied her recurrence claim, finding that her claim should be developed as a new occupational 

disease claim.8

The Board does not have jurisdiction over the July 20, 2016 merit decision and can 

consider only whether appellant met any of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3), which 

would require OWCP to reopen the case for merit review. The underlying issue on 

reconsideration is whether the medical evidence of record establishes causal relationship 

between her disability from work and accepted employment injury of right muscle spasm. This 

issue is medical in nature. 

The Board finds that appellant did not attempt to show that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law. Moreover, appellant did not attempt to advance a relevant 

legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. In her October 17, 2016 request for 

reconsideration, she merely requested that OWCP review the medical evidence submitted. The 

Board therefore finds that appellant is not entitled to a review of the merits of her claim based on 

the first and second above-noted requirements under section 10.606(b)(3). 

The Board further finds that appellant did not submit relevant or pertinent new evidence 

not previously considered by OWCP. Dr. Iheme’s July 28, 2015 and October 13, 2016 duty 

status reports were duplicative and the July 28, 2015 report was already of record. Evidence that 

repeats or duplicates evidence already in the case record has no evidentiary value and does not 

constitute a basis for reopening a case.9 Dr. Iheme’s September 29, 2016 note merely listed the 

treated conditions without providing any new observations or opinion on the causal relationship 

between these conditions and appellant’s accepted employment injury of right muscle spasm. 

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

involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.10 As Dr. Iheme’s July 28, 2015 and 

October 13, 2016 reports did not address the basis of denial of the underlying claim, it does not 

constitute relevant or pertinent new evidence requiring OWCP to reopen appellant’s claim for 

consideration of the merits. 

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). 

 8 Compare S.S., Docket No. 16-0675 (issued July 15, 2016) (finding that, although appellant had filed a 

recurrence claim, the intervening employment injury, established that her claim should be developed as a traumatic 

injury). The new occupational disease claim is not before the Board on the present appeal. 

9 C.H., Docket No. 17-0074 (issued March 17, 2017). 

10 B.T., supra note 6. 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT January 10, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 13, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board