United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL 

FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND, 

San Diego, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0269

Issued: May 24, 2019

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 November 20, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 16, 2017 merit 

decision and an October 27, 2017 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1(FECA) and 20 

C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.2

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the October 27, 2017 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, 

the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record 

that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the 

Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this 

additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an injury 

causally related to her accepted employment exposure; 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).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 11, 2017 appellant, a 56-year-old contract specialist, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed bilateral hand conditions due to factors of 

her federal employment, including using the computer to complete contract-related documents. 

She indicated that she first became aware of her condition on August 4, 2017 and first related it to 

her employment on August 30, 2017.

In a narrative statement, appellant indicated that she had worked in her current position at

the employing establishment since July 2010 and that her duties required using a computer and 

performing some manual filing. She stated that she used the computer for six to eight hours per 

day.

In a September 14, 2017 development letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim and advised her as to the need to submit a comprehensive narrative medical report 

from a qualified physician that included a diagnosis and an opinion, supported by medical 

rationale, addressing how the work-related exposure resulted in the diagnosed condition(s). It 

afforded her 30 days to submit medical evidence in support of her claim. OWCP did not receive 

a response.

By decision dated October 16, 2017, OWCP accepted that the employment exposure

occurred as alleged, but denied appellant’s claim, finding that she had not submitted evidence 

containing a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted employment exposure.

On October 24, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration and indicated that her medical 

provider had submitted reports electronically.

By decision dated October 27, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

without conducting a merit review.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including the fact that the individual is an employee of the 

United States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation of FECA,4that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and 

 

3 Supra note 1.

4

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 
3

that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to 

the employment injury.5 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim, 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.6

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit: (1) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence 

of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) a factual statement identifying 

employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the 

disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally 

related to the identified employment factors.7

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish causal 

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.8 The opinion of the physician must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable medical 

certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship

between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors identified by the employee.9 

Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment, 

nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or 

incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

sustained an injury causally related to the accepted employment exposure.

On her claim form appellant stated that she had been diagnosed with bilateral hand 

conditions. In support of her claim, she submitted a narrative statement describing her various 

employment duties, which included performing some manual filing and using a computer for six 

to eight hours per day. In its September 14, 2017 development letter, OWCP specifically informed 

appellant of the need to submit a comprehensive narrative medical report from a qualified 

physician that included a diagnosis and an opinion, supported by medical rationale, addressing 

how the work-related exposure resulted in the diagnosed condition(s). No response was received. 

Appellant must submit, as a part of her burden of proof, medical evidence establishing the 

presence or existence of a disease or condition for which compensation is claimed because she has 

 

5

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988). 

6 R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April 25, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990). 

7 S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

8 L.D., Docket No. 17-1581 (issued January 23, 2018); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

9 L.D., id.; see also Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994).

10 Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997).
4

not submitted competent medical evidence addressing how the accepted employment exposure

caused or contributed to a diagnosed medical condition, the Board finds that she has not met her 

burden of proof.

11

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

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

matter of right.12 OWCP has discretionary authority in this regard and has imposed certain 

limitations in exercising its authority.13 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.14 

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.15 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.16

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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).

Appellant’s October 24, 2017 request for reconsideration neither alleged nor demonstrated 

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

finds that she did not advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. 

Consequently, appellant is not entitled to further review of the merits of her claim based on the 

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

 

11 See supra note 2.

12 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).

13 20 C.F.R. § 10.607.

14 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 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.

15 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).

16 Id. at § 10.608(a), (b).
5

In addition to her reconsideration request, appellant indicated that her medical provider had 

submitted reports electronically. However, the record does not contain medical evidence received 

prior to OWCP’s October 27, 2017 decision.17 As there was no relevant and pertinent new 

evidence submitted in conjunction with appellant’s request for reconsideration, she has also failed 

to satisfy the third above-noted requirement under section 10.606(b)(3).

The Board accordingly finds that appellant has not met any of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.18

CONCLUSION

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

causally related to the accepted employment exposure. The Board further finds that OWCP 

properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. § 8128(a).

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 27 and 16, 2017 decisions of the Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: May 24, 2019

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

 

17 See supra note 2.

18 D.R., Docket No. 18-0357 (issued July 2, 2018); A.K., Docket No. 09-2032 (issued August 3, 2010); M.E., 58 

ECAB 694 (2007); Susan A. Filkins, 57 ECAB 630 (2006).