United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.H., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

OVERTON BROOKS MEDICAL CENTER, 

Shreveport, LA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1236 

Issued: October 20, 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 of a January 20, 2016 nonmerit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). As the last merit decision in the 

case is dated July 22, 2015, which is more than 180 days prior to the filing of the instant 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 this case.2

ISSUE 

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

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

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The record on appeal contains evidence received after OWCP issued its January 20, 2016 decision. The Board, 

however, is precluded from considering evidence that was not in the case record at the time OWCP rendered its final 

decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On November 26, 2014 appellant, then a 55-year-old former licensed practical nurse, 

filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she injured her hands on or about 

June 12, 2008 while doing chest compressions.3 She further alleged that her condition had 

progressively worsened over the years due to repeated use of her hands at work. Prior to her 

January 6, 2012 resignation, appellant had been working as a health technician (telemetry); a 

position she held since September 30, 2011.4 

The relevant medical evidence included a July 11, 2012 electromyogram/nerve 

conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) study that revealed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, right 

greater than left. 

In an August 9, 2012 report, Dr. Ellis O. Cooper III, a Board-certified hand surgeon, 

noted complaints of bilateral hand pain, numbness, and tingling which had reportedly been going 

on for about five years. He also reported that appellant “knows of no trauma that started this.” 

Dr. Cooper diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. On physical examination, appellant had 

positive Tinel’s test and positive carpal compression test, bilaterally. Dr. Cooper also noted 

appellant’s positive EMG/NCV study results. He diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome 

and recommended carpal tunnel releases. 

Dr. John D. Googe, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, examined appellant on 

August 15, 2012 and diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.5 He attributed appellant’s 

condition to a February 22, 2001 employment injury “doing chest compressions.” Dr. Googe 

noted that appellant’s injury was initially treated as a rotator cuff tear. 

In a report dated August 23, 2012, Dr. Austin W. Gleason, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, referenced five separate employment injuries occurring between February 2001 and 

May 2011. He indicated that appellant had been disabled since January 2, 2012 due to various 

on-the-job injuries. Appellant’s employment-related conditions included bilateral carpal tunnel 

syndrome, right shoulder rotator cuff tear -- status postsurgery with acromioclavicular joint 

arthritis, lumbar degenerative disc disease (L2-3, L3-4), multilevel cervical degenerative disc 

disease, and trauma-related fibromyalgia. 

In a September 26, 2012 progress report, Dr. Googe noted that appellant continued to 

complain of bilateral hand pain, with associated weakness and numbness. He continued to 

diagnose work-related bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.6

 

 3

 Appellant has an accepted traumatic injury claim for neck sprain and right rotator cuff sprain, which occurred on 

June 12, 2008 (OWCP File No. xxxxxx830). 

4

 According to the employing establishment, appellant’s permanent reassignment as a health technician 

(telemetry) was the result of an April 8, 2009 work-related injury under File No. xxxxxx627. 

5

 Dr. Googe is a colleague of Dr. Cooper’s at Orthopedic Specialists of Louisiana. 

6

 Dr. Googe provided similar information in his April 3, 2013 progress report. 
3

On October 15, 2012 the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) authorized appellant’s 

disability retirement. It found appellant disabled due to bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, 

residual pain from rotator cuff tear status postsurgery, lumbar degenerative disc disease, cervical 

degenerative disc disease, and fibromyalgia due to trauma with generalized pain.7

 

On December 9, 2014 OWCP advised appellant that she needed to submit additional 

factual and medical information regarding her claim. In its claim development letter, it 

requested, inter alia, a comprehensive narrative medical report. The December 9, 2014 letter 

identified specific types of information the attending physician’s narrative report should include. 

OWCP also requested a detailed description of the particular job duties appellant believed caused 

or contributed to her claimed bilateral hand condition. 

In a December 12, 2014 supplemental statement, appellant indicated that she previously 

advised her physician that she had been “working with telemetry equipment and typing at the 

computer.” 

By decision dated January 22, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because she failed 

to establish fact of injury. Although she submitted additional factual and medical information in 

response to OWCP’s December 9, 2014 inquiry, appellant did not provide detailed information 

regarding her specific duties or the frequency and/or duration of any implicated job duties. 

Consequently, OWCP found that she failed to satisfy the factual component of fact of injury. 

Appellant timely requested reconsideration, which OWCP received on March 2, 2015. In 

a February 9, 2015 statement, she indicated that she had been assigned to telemetry where she 

continuously cleaned equipment. This activity reportedly occurred on a daily basis. Appellant 

claimed it contributed to her condition. She also reported that she had no hobbies or recreational 

activities outside of her federal employment. Appellant contended that her carpal tunnel 

syndrome worsened after starting her new job in telemetry, which involved cleaning equipment 

and continuous typing on a computer 12 hours per day. 

OWCP also received additional medical evidence from Dr. Cooper and Dr. Googe. In a 

May 24, 2013 addendum, Dr. Cooper indicated that appellant’s bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome 

was indeed likely a result of her repetitive motion activities while employed at the employing 

establishment. He also provided follow-up reports dated June 7, 2013, July 28 and August 4, 

2014, and February 2, 2015. Dr. Cooper continued to diagnose bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, 

which he attributed to job-related repetitive hand stress. Dr. Googe also continued to diagnose 

carpal tunnel syndrome in his June 23, August 4, 2014, and January 30, 2015 progress reports. 

In an April 6, 2015 decision, OWCP denied modification of the January 22, 2015 

decision, finding that appellant failed to establish the factual component of fact of injury. It 

explained that the latest evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant modification because it 

was still unclear what appellant claimed to have caused her bilateral hand condition. The senior 

claims examiner noted that appellant’s November 26, 2014 Form CA-2 indicated that the 

condition was the result of doing chest compressions, but in her subsequent statement, she 

 7

 Appellant would later claim wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) for the period January 2 through 

October 15, 2012. 
4

attributed her bilateral hand condition to cleaning telemetry equipment and typing 12 hours a day 

as a health technician (telemetry). She further found that appellant’s statement was too vague 

and general with respect to work factors she believed were responsible for her bilateral hand 

condition. 

On April 14, 2015 appellant again requested reconsideration. She argued that her 

bilateral hand symptoms dated back to 2008, which reportedly had already been documented in 

the medical records submitted. Appellant also resubmitted her July 11, 2012 EMG/NCV study 

and several reports from Dr. Cooper (September 9, 2012, May 24, 2013, August 4, 2014, and 

February 2 and June 9, 2015). 

By decision dated July 22, 2015, OWCP again denied modification. It noted that 

appellant did not submit a detailed statement clarifying whether her claimed condition was 

caused or aggravated by performing chest compressions or due to typing 12 hours a day in the 

position she most recently held prior to resigning in January 2012. 

On August 17, 2015 appellant again requested reconsideration, using the appeal request 

form that accompanied OWCP’s July 22, 2015 decision. She noted on the form that Dr. Cooper 

would resubmit a narrative report. However, there is no record of OWCP having received any 

additional factual or medical evidence following its July 22, 2015 decision. 

In a nonmerit decision dated January 20, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration. It noted, inter alia, that it received her request for reconsideration on 

August 31, 2015. However, appellant did not submit any evidence in support of her request. 

OWCP further noted that she failed to describe the specific work factors she believed to have 

caused her claimed condition. Consequently, it found there was insufficient evidence or 

argument to warrant merit review of its July 22, 2015 decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8128(a) of FECA does not entitle a claimant to review of an OWCP decision as a 

matter of right.8

 OWCP has discretionary authority in this regard and has imposed certain 

limitations in exercising its authority.9

 One such limitation is that the request for reconsideration 

must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of the decision for which review is 

sought.10 A timely application for reconsideration, including all supporting documents, must set 

forth arguments and contain evidence that either: (i) shows that OWCP erroneously applied or 

 8

 This section provides in pertinent part: “[t]he Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against payment 

of compensation at any time on [his/her] own motion or on application.” 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

9

 20 C.F.R. § 10.607. 

10 Id. at § 10.607(a). The one-year period begins on the next day after the date of the original contested decision. 

For merit decisions issued on or after August 29, 2011, a request for reconsideration must be “received” by OWCP 

within one year of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- 

Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 (February 2016). Timeliness is determined by the document receipt 

date of the request for reconsideration as indicated by the “received date” in the Integrated Federal Employees’ 

Compensation System (iFECS). Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4b. 
5

interpreted a specific point of law; (ii) advances a relevant legal argument not previously 

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

considered by OWCP.11 When a timely application for reconsideration does not meet at least 

one of the above-noted requirements, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for a review on the merits.12

ANALYSIS 

Although appellant timely requested reconsideration, her August 17, 2015 request did not 

elaborate on the basis for reconsideration. She merely noted that Dr. Cooper would resubmit a 

narrative report, evidence which OWCP never received. Appellant neither alleged, nor 

demonstrated that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law. 

Additionally, she did not advance any relevant legal arguments not previously considered by 

OWCP. Accordingly, appellant is not entitled to a review of the merits based on the first and 

second requirements under section 10.606(b)(3).13

Appellant also failed to submit any relevant and pertinent new evidence with her latest 

request for reconsideration. Although she indicated Dr. Cooper would resubmit a narrative 

report, OWCP noted that appellant had not submitted any evidence in support of her request for 

reconsideration. Because she did not provide OWCP with any relevant and pertinent new 

evidence, appellant is not entitled to a review of the merits based on the third requirement under 

section 10.606(b)(3).14 Accordingly, OWCP properly declined to reopen appellant’s case under 

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s August 17, 2015 request for 

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

 11 Id. § 10.606(b)(3). 

12 Id. § 10.608(a), (b). 

13 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3)(i) and (ii). 

14 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3)(iii). 
6

ORDER 

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 20, 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