United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MANAGER 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Tallahassee, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1798

Issued: February 23, 2018

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 August 21, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 22, 2017 merit decision 

and an August 2, 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.

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish a back

condition causally related to factors of her federal employment; 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).

 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

On appeal appellant contends that she submitted the proper documentation to establish an 

employment-related back injury that resulted in her resignation from the employing 

establishment and need for surgery.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 14, 2017 appellant, then a 54-year-old mail handler assistant, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained a strain caused or aggravated 

by factors of her federal employment. She noted that she first became aware of her condition on 

March 30, 2017 and realized its relationship to her federal employment on April 11, 2017. On 

the reverse side of the claim form the employing establishment noted that appellant stopped work 

on April 12, 2017, but did not report her claimed injury to a supervisor until April 14, 2017.

OWCP, by letter dated April 19, 2017, advised appellant that it required additional 

factual and medical evidence to determine whether she was eligible for FECA benefits. It noted 

that it had not received any other documentation with appellant’s claim form. OWCP attached a 

development questionnaire, asking appellant to provide a detailed description of the 

employment-related activities she believed contributed to her condition, as well as to provide 

information regarding the frequency and duration of the activities. It afforded appellant 30 days 

to submit the requested information.

In a May 1, 2017 letter, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim, 

contending that she did not sustain an injury while performing repetitive motion at work. It 

asserted that, during an initial investigation of her claim, she could not determine when her 

injury occurred and supposed that it occurred on March 30, 2017. The employing establishment 

further asserted that appellant waited approximately 11 days before seeking medical care and 

reporting her claimed injury. It noted that, during its investigation, she reported having

preexisting sciatica, which she sustained while serving in the United States Coast Guard. 

On May 8, 2017 appellant submitted an April 14, 2017 letter describing the development 

of her back condition. She claimed that she experienced swelling, stiffness, and pain in her back 

while working as a mail handler assistant. Appellant related that she told her coworkers about 

her back pain and continued to work. She maintained that, after work, her pain worsened, she 

purchased over-the-counter medication and other treatment products for her condition. 

Appellant noted that she was treated at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center with injections 

in her backside, prescribed medication, and placed off work until April 14, 2017.

Appellant submitted a letter dated April 14, 2017 in which the employing establishment 

advised her of the type of medical documentation needed to support her claim. She also 

submitted the fifth page of a document entitled “Employee Rights and Responsibilities for 

Occupational Disease/Form CA-2” dated April 14, 2017.

An April 11, 2017 note from the Lake City, Florida VA Medical Center, containing an 

illegible signature, noted that appellant was placed off work for two days through April 13, 2017 

due to an injury.
3

In a May 2, 2017 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Adamar Munoz, an 

attending emergency medicine, noted the date of injury as March 30, 2017. Under history of the 

employment injury, she reported that appellant had back pain exacerbation. Dr. Munoz checked 

a box marked “yes” indicating that she had a history or evidence of concurrent or preexisting 

injury or disease or physical impairment. She diagnosed chronic back pain and checked a box 

marked “yes” indicating that the diagnosed condition was caused or aggravated by the described 

employment activity. Dr. Munoz noted pushing and lifting heavy boxes as appellant’s 

employment activities. She further noted that appellant was totally disabled from work from 

March 30 to April 14, 2017. Dr. Munoz released her to return to regular work on April 14, 2017. 

An unsigned letter dated May 2, 2017 from the Department of Veterans Affairs, North 

Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System informed appellant that a lower back x-ray 

showed mild degenerative disc disease with small osteophyte formation at Tl0-T1l, Tl1-T12, and 

L2-L3 levels. The letter also indicated that the x-ray showed mild facet joint arthropathy at L3-

L4 and L4-L5 levels and mild degenerative arthritic changes in bilateral sacroiliac joints. 

By decision dated May 22, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an occupational 

disease because she failed to establish the factual component of fact of injury. It noted that she 

had not identified the direct cause of her claimed injury. Additionally, OWCP found that 

appellant failed to submit medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis in connection with 

work events. 

On July 5, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration. She contended that Dr. Munoz’s 

May 2, 2017 Form CA-20 report established that her preexisting back sciatica was aggravated by 

her work duties. Appellant submitted letters dated April 10 and 12, 2017 in which the employing 

establishment addressed her request for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and 

its denial of her request. She also submitted a June 9, 2017 letter from the employing 

establishment, which advised her to request light-duty work if she was unable to perform her 

full, regular duties.

On a Florida Workers’ Compensation form with a partial date, Markira Stewart, a 

physician assistant, noted July 22, 2017 as the date of accident and that appellant was seen on 

July 25, 2017. She advised that appellant could return to activities with restrictions related to her 

back and right shoulder. Ms. Stewart indicated that no clinical services were indicated at that 

time. 

Appellant resubmitted the May 2, 2017 letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs, 

and April 11, 2017 excuse note from the Lake City, FL, VA Medical Center. She also 

resubmitted her April 14, 2017 letter, Dr. Munoz’s May 2, 2017 Form CA-20 report, and the 

employing establishment’s April 14, 2017 letter.

By decision dated August 2, 2017, OWCP denied reconsideration of the merits of 

appellant’s claim. It found that she did not submit a pertinent new and relevant argument and did 

not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a point of law not previously considered 

by OWCP.
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation, that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty, and that any disability 

or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment 

injury.3 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim regardless of 

whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4

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

disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (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 

employment factors identified by the claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for 

which compensation is claimed or, stated differently, medical evidence establishing that the 

diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant. 

Appellant’s burden of proof includes the submission of a detailed description of the 

employment factors or conditions which he believes caused or adversely affected a condition for 

which compensation is claimed.5

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant failed to meet her burden of proof to establish a back 

condition causally related to factors of her federal employment.

Appellant’s claim form generally stated that she sustained a strain caused or aggravated 

by factors of her federal employment. However, she did not present a clear factual statement 

identifying specific employment factors or conditions alleged to have caused or contributed to 

the presence or occurrence of her claimed medical condition, nor has she explained how those 

work factors caused or aggravated her claimed condition.

On April 19, 2017 OWCP informed appellant that the evidence received was insufficient 

to establish that she experienced any employment factors that were alleged to have caused an 

injury. Appellant was asked to provide a detailed description of the employment-related 

activities she believed contributed to her condition and how often she performed the described 

activities. OWCP received an April 14, 2017 letter from appellant which described the back 

symptoms she experienced while working as a mail handler assistant and the medical treatment 

 

2

Id.

 

3 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

 

4 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5 T.B., Docket No. 17-0444 (issued May 5, 2017).
5

she received. However, appellant still did not clearly identify any specific work duties as the 

cause of her claimed condition or explain how work duties caused or aggravated her condition.

The Board notes that, while Dr. Munoz, in her May 2, 2017 Form CA-20 report, attributed 

appellant’s diagnosed chronic back pain to pushing and lifting heavy boxes at work, there is no 

evidence that she had direct knowledge of appellant’s employment duties. Under history of 

injury, Dr. Munoz only related appellant’s account of an exacerbation of back pain. As appellant 

did not provide a factual statement describing in detail the events that caused the claimed injury 

and the circumstances surrounding the injury, she has not met her burden of proof.

6

As appellant has not established the factual component of her claim, the Board will not 

address the medical evidence with respect to causal relationship.7

On appeal appellant contends that she submitted the proper documentation to establish an 

employment-related back injury that resulted in her resignation from the employing 

establishment and need for surgery. As found above, she did not submit sufficient evidence to 

establish employment factors that caused or contributed to her claimed back condition. 

Accordingly, appellant failed to establish fact of injury in the performance of duty.

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 of FECA vests OWCP with a discretionary authority to determine whether 

it will review an award for or against compensation, either under its own authority or on 

application by a claimant.8 Section 10.608(b) of OWCP’s regulations provide that a timely 

request for reconsideration may be granted if OWCP determines that the claimant has presented 

evidence and/or argument that meet at least one of the standards described in section 

10.606(b)(3).9 This section provides that the application for reconsideration must be submitted 

in writing and set forth arguments and contain evidence that either: (1) shows that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advances a relevant legal argument 

not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not 

previously considered by OWCP.10 Section 10.608(b) provides that when a request for 

reconsideration is timely but fails to meet at least one of these three requirements, OWCP will 

deny the application for reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on the merits.11

 

6 D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006); P.G., Docket No. 15-1345 (issued August 23, 2016).

7 See B.G., Docket No. 16-1454 (issued November 22, 2016).

8 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

9 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(a).

 

10 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3).

11 Id. at § 10.608(b).
6

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).

On July 5, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s May 22, 2017 decision 

which denied her occupational disease claim. The underlying issue on reconsideration is factual

in nature - whether appellant established factors of her federal employment that caused or 

contributed to her claimed back condition.

In her June 23, 2015 request for reconsideration, appellant did not show that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law, or advance a new and relevant legal 

argument not previously considered. Thus, she 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 and pertinent new evidence 

in support of reconsideration. The new letters from the employing establishment regarding 

appellant’s FMLA leave request and work assignment are not relevant to the underlying factual 

issue. These documents do not address the factual issue of whether appellant established factors 

of her federal employment that caused or contributed to her claimed back condition. Similarly, 

appellant submitted a new medical report from a physician assistant, which does not address the 

factual issue of whether she established work duties that caused or contributed to her claimed 

back condition. Evidence which does not address the particular issue under consideration does 

not constitute a basis for reopening a case.12

Appellant resubmitted the May 2, 2017 letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs, 

an April 11, 2017 excuse note from the Lake City, FL, VA Medical Center, her April 14, 2017 

letter, Dr. Munoz’s May 2, 2017 Form CA-20 report, and the employing establishment’s 

April 14, 2017 letter. Evidence or argument that repeats or duplicates evidence previously of 

record has no evidentiary value and does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.13

The Board accordingly finds that appellant failed to meet 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. 

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has failed to meet her burden of proof to establish a back 

condition causally related to factors of her federal employment. 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).

 

12 See K.T., Docket No. 15-1916 (issued February 1, 2016).

13 D.K., 59 ECAB 141 (2007).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 2 and May 22, 2017 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: February 23, 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