United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

San Diego, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1836

Issued: January 12, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 29, 2017 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an August 1, 

2017 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). As more 

than 180 days elapsed from the last merit decision dated May 20, 2016 to the filing of this 

appeal, pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board lacks jurisdiction over the merits of the case.

 

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

ISSUE

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

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 4, 2015 appellant, then a 55-year-old revenue agent, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she experienced severe depression, high blood pressure, and 

anxiety and panic on April 2, 2015. She attributed her condition to a manager’s abuse and 

retaliation after she experienced a left shoulder injury and the failure of the employing 

establishment to provide reasonable accommodation for her difficulty breathing. Appellant

stopped work on April 12, 2015. 

S.B., a supervisor, related that appellant had requested that her workload review be 

rescheduled so that she could see a nurse due to stress. She told appellant that if she remained at 

work the review would proceed, noting that she had already granted appellant’s request for prior 

postponements. S.B. advised that the employing establishment accommodated appellant’s

shoulder injury.3

In a statement dated April 24, 2015, A.N., a coworker, related that on April 2, 2015 

appellant had “a meltdown from all the stress that [S.B.] had put [her] under.”

4

 She 

accompanied appellant to the union office about a scheduled review, but she was too upset to 

articulate what was happening. A.N. drove her to see a physician.

By decision dated June 19, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim. 

It found that she had not provided a detailed statement identifying the work factors to which she 

attributed her condition or supported her contentions with corroborating evidence, and thus had 

failed to factually establish her claim.5

Appellant, on July 7, 2015, requested a telephone hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative. During the telephone hearing, held on March 11, 2016, counsel asserted that 

management retaliated against her after a shoulder injury. Appellant described actions by her 

supervisor that she believed were inappropriate, including lowering her performance evaluation 

and denying her request to telework due to episodes of vertigo. She asserted that she had filed a 

grievance which was resolved in her favor.6

 

3

In an undated statement received June 9, 2015, the employing establishment indicated that it was unaware that 

appellant had any difficulty breathing. 

4

In a statement dated April 24, 2015, V.H., a coworker, related that appellant was crying and upset on 

April 2, 2015. She advised that she became unwell after any contact with her supervisor, and that it had begun after 

her shoulder injury in July 2012.

5 OWCP also noted that appellant had not submitted any medical evidence from a physician supporting her claim.

6 The employing establishment submitted a statement on April 11, 2016 commenting on the hearing. 
3

In a decision dated May 20, 2016, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the June 19, 

2015 decision. She found that appellant had not established any compensable factors of 

employment.

On May 4, 2017 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. Counsel

submitted the April 24, 2015 statement from A.N. in support of the request, which he maintained 

OWCP had not previously considered. 

By decision dated August 1, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

as she had not raised an argument or submitted evidence sufficient to warrant reopening her case 

for further review of the merits under section 8128(a). It noted that it had previously considered 

the April 24, 2015 witness statement from A.N.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128(a) of FECA,7

OWCP’s regulations provide that 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.8 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.9 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.10

The Board has held that the submission of evidence which repeats or duplicates evidence 

already in the case record does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.11 The Board also has 

held that the submission of evidence which does not address the particular issue involved does 

not constitute a basis for reopening a case.12 

ANALYSIS

OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition by decision dated May 20, 2016. On 

May 4, 2017 appellant timely requested reconsideration. The Board finds that OWCP properly 

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

 

7 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. Section 8128(a) of FECA provides that “[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.” 

8 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).

9

Id. at § 10.607(a).

10 Id. at § 10.608(b).

11 F.R., 58 ECAB 607 (2007); Arlesa Gibbs, 53 ECAB 204 (2001).

12 P.C., 58 ECAB 405 (2007); Ronald A. Eldridge, 53 ECAB 218 (2001); Alan G. Williams, 52 ECAB 

180 (2000).
4

Appellant did not to show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point 

of law, nor did she advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP.13 

Additionally, she has not submitted relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously 

considered by OWCP. The underlying issue in this case is whether appellant has established a 

compensable employment factor. In support of her request for reconsideration, appellant

resubmitted an April 24, 2015 witness statement from A.N. Evidence which is duplicative, 

cumulative, or repetitive in nature is insufficient to warrant reopening a claim for merit review.14

Appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of 

law, advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP, or submit pertinent 

new and relevant evidence not previously considered. The Board accordingly finds that she has 

not met the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Accordingly, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.15

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).

 

13 See J.F., Docket No. 16-1233 (issued November 23, 2016).

14 See D.G., Docket No. 17-1251 (issued October 23, 2017); Denis M. Dupor, 51 ECAB 482 (2000).

15 See D.G., id.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 1, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 12, 2018

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