United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.Z., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL 

CENTER, Long Beach, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1538 

Issued: March 28, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 26, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from the February 1 and June 1, 2016 

nonmerit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 As more than 

180 days elapsed from the latest merit decision dated August 17, 2015 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 this case.3

 1

 Together with his application for review (AB-1), appellant submitted a timely request for oral argument 

pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). After exercising its discretion the Board, by order dated January 12, 2017, denied 

appellant’s request as the arguments on appeal could be adequately addressed in a decision based on a review of the 

case as submitted on the record. Order Denying Request for Oral Argument, Docket No. 16-1538 (issued 

January 12, 2017). 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

3

 Appellant submitted additional medical evidence with his notice of appeal to the Board. The Board’s 

jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Therefore, 

the Board lacks jurisdiction to review any additional evidence submitted after OWCP’s June 1, 2016 decision. 20 

C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

ISSUE 

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

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

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 6, 2015 appellant, then a 58-year-old electrician, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that he was injured in a May 16, 2015 motor vehicle accident (MVA). He 

explained that while driving on the employing establishment premises, police sport utility 

vehicle (SUV) struck the right side of the truck he was operating. The force of the collision 

reportedly turned appellant’s vehicle sideways, causing damage to the rear axle and transmission 

drivetrain. He claimed to have been bounced around like a ping-pong ball inside the truck’s 

cabin. On the Form CA-1, appellant reported injuries to his neck, upper and lower back, right 

shoulder, right wrist, left thumb, and both feet. 

In a May 16, 2015 accident report, the employing establishment’s police officer 

acknowledged that he struck the passenger side, tail end of appellant’s truck at approximately 

6:55 a.m.4

 The police SUV was traveling at approximately 5 miles per hour when it collided 

with appellant’s vehicle. The officer’s view was reportedly obstructed by overgrown bushes at 

the intersection where the collision occurred. Both appellant and the employing establishment’s 

police officer were reportedly uninjured at the time of the MVA and refused any medical 

treatment. 

The medical evidence submitted with the claim regarding appellant’s medical condition 

included May 18, 28, and June 25, 2015 reports from Dr. Elisabeth Brown, a Board-certified 

family practitioner. In her May 18, 2015 report, Dr. Brown noted that appellant had been seen in 

the office that day and he required a medical leave of absence for the period May 16 

through 31, 2015. She advised that appellant could return to work without restrictions effective 

June 1, 2015. 

Dr. Brown’s May 28, 2015 follow-up report indicated that appellant had been seen that 

day and he required a medical leave of absence from May 18 through June 29, 2015. She further 

indicated that appellant could return to regular work without restrictions on June 29, 2015. 

On June 25, 2015 Dr. Brown indicated that appellant could return to modified work on 

June 29, 2015 with limitations of no reaching, as this caused his neck and bilateral shoulder pain 

to worsen and no lifting, pushing, pulling, climbing, and twisting. 

On June 25, 2015 Dr. Haig Minassian, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, released appellant 

to resume work effective June 29, 2015 with restrictions of no overhead work and no power 

tools. 

 4

 Appellant was on his way to work at the time of the collision. His regular tour of duty was 7:00 a.m. until 

3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. 
3

In a June 29, 2015 report, Dr. David Webb, a Board-certified occupational medicine 

specialist, advised that appellant was capable of working restricted duty until July 7, 2015. His 

restrictions included no lifting, pushing, pulling, no reaching above shoulder -- bilaterally, no 

overhead work, and no power tools. 

On July 7, 2015 OWCP advised appellant of the need for additional factual and medical 

evidence to support his claim for compensation benefits. It noted that the previously submitted 

medical evidence was insufficient because there was no diagnosis of any condition resulting 

from the claimed injury. It afforded appellant at least 30 days to submit the requested 

information. 

In a July 20, 2015 statement, in response to OWCP’s development letter, appellant noted, 

among other things, that he had a preexisting degenerative disc in his neck. He provided no 

additional medical evidence within the allotted time frame. 

By decision dated August 17, 2015, OWCP accepted that the May 16, 2015 employment 

incident occurred as alleged, but denied the claim finding that appellant had not submitted 

evidence containing a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted employment incident. 

On January 26, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted a statement 

reiterating the factual history of the claim. He also submitted page two of OWCP’s prior 

development letter, which included handwritten notations referencing a magnetic resonance 

imaging (MRI) scan and a diagnosis of multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease with left 

upper extremity radiculopathy. 

In a February 1, 2016 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s timely request for 

reconsideration. It found, however, that the author of the handwritten note was unclear, and thus, 

the information provided could not be construed as medical evidence from a physician. 

On March 7, 2016 appellant again requested reconsideration. He resubmitted a prior 

factual statement regarding the MVA where he was T-boned by an employing establishment 

police officer. Appellant also resubmitted the previously unidentifiable handwritten notations 

regarding cervical degenerative disc disease. Additionally, he submitted MRI scans of the 

cervical spine and right shoulder. A May 26, 2015 cervical MRI scan revealed multilevel 

degenerative changes with significant neuroforaminal narrowing at C4-5 and C5-6. Appellant’s 

July 31, 2015 right shoulder MRI scan demonstrated tendinosis and mild-to-moderate 

glenohumeral osteoarthrosis. 

By decision dated June 1, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s timely request for 

reconsideration. It indicated that it had previously considered the handwritten notes. 

Additionally, OWCP noted that the recently submitted MRI scans were taken after the May 16, 

2015 employment-related MVA and did not contain a physician’s opinion attributing the 

respective diagnoses to the accident. Lastly, it noted that there was no other evidence of record 

establishing that appellant sustained an injury either caused or aggravated by the May 16, 2015 

employment-related MVA. 
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

matter of right.5

 OWCP has discretionary authority in this regard and has imposed certain 

limitations in exercising its authority.6

 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.7

 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 

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.8

 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.9

ANALYSIS 

In its August 17, 2015 merit decision, OWCP accepted that the May 16, 2015 

employment incident occurred as alleged, but it denied appellant’s claim because he failed to 

submit medical evidence that included a diagnosis in connection with the May 16, 2015 

employment incident. Appellant requested reconsideration of the August 17, 2015 merit 

decision on January 26, 2016. This request for reconsideration neither alleged nor demonstrated 

that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law. Additionally, appellant 

did not advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. Consequently, 

he is not entitled to further review of the merits of his claim based on the first and second abovenoted requirements under section 10.606(b)(3).10

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

January 26, 2016 request for reconsideration. OWCP had already accepted that the May 16, 

2015 employment incident occurred as alleged. Therefore, appellant’s additional statement 

regarding the May 16, 2015 employment-related MVA was not relevant to the medical issue on 

reconsideration, which was whether there was an appropriate medical diagnosis in connection 

with the accepted employment incident. The handwritten notations on page two of OWCP’s 

 5

 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 own motion or on application.” 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

6

 20 C.F.R. § 10.607. 

7 Id. at § 10.607(a). For merit decisions issued on or after August 29, 2011, a request for reconsideration must be 

“received” by OWCP within one year of the OWCP 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. 

8

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

9 Id. at § 10.608(a), (b). 

10 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3)(i) and (ii). 
5

July 2015 development letter do not constitute medical evidence from a physician as it is unclear 

who authored the reported diagnosis of cervical spine degenerative disc disease. A medical 

report should bear the physician’s signature or signature stamp.11 OWCP may require an 

original signature on the report.12 Because appellant failed to provide any relevant and pertinent 

new evidence with his January 26, 2016 reconsideration request, he was not entitled to a review 

of the merits based on the third requirement under section 10.606(b)(3).13 OWCP properly 

declined to reopen appellant’s case under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). Accordingly, the Board shall 

affirm the February 1, 2016 nonmerit decision. 

Appellant filed another request for reconsideration on March 7, 2016. This request was 

also timely with respect to the August 17, 2015 merit decision, but again appellant neither 

alleged nor demonstrated that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law. 

He also did not advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. 

Consequently, the March 7, 2017 request for reconsideration does not justify further merit 

review under section 10.606(b)(3)(i) and (ii). 

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

March 7, 2016 request for reconsideration. As noted, the issue on reconsideration was whether 

there was an appropriate medical diagnosis in connection with the May 16, 2015 employmentrelated MVA. Appellant resubmitted his statement regarding the accepted MVA, as well as 

another copy of the handwritten notations on the claim development letter. For reasons 

previously discussed, this information is insufficient to warrant reopening the claim for further 

merit review. Moreover, providing additional evidence that either repeats or duplicates 

information already in the record does not constitute a basis for reopening a claim.14

With respect to the newly submitted cervical and right shoulder MRI scans, this evidence 

is similarly insufficient to warrant further merit review. Although new to the record, the 

diagnostic studies do not address a relationship between the May 16, 2015 employment incident 

and the diagnosed right shoulder and/or cervical conditions. The Board has held that submission 

of evidence which does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for 

reopening a case.15 In this instance, the radiologist reports of the May 26 and July 31, 2015 MRI 

scans did not address the cause(s) of the identified conditions. Consequently, the newly 

submitted diagnostic studies are insufficient to warrant reopening the case for further merit 

review under section 10.606(b)(3)(iii). OWCP properly declined to reopen appellant’s case 

under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). The Board shall similarly affirm the June 1, 2016 nonmerit decision. 

 11 Id. at § 10.331(a). 

12 Id.

13 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3)(iii). 

14 James W. Scott, 55 ECAB 606, 608 n.4 (2004). 

15 See M.D., Docket No. 16-0745 (issued February 8, 2017); see also Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 

224, 225 (1979). 
6

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s requests for merit review of the 

claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 1 and February 1, 2016 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: March 28, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board