United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MOUNT OLIVER 

POST OFFICE, Pittsburgh, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0053

Issued: April 4, 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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 9, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 13, 2018 nonmerit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). As more than 180 days has 

elapsed from the last merit decision, dated October 25, 2017, to the filing of this 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. 

ISSUE

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

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

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 11, 2017 appellant, then a 46-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date he injured his mid back when his vehicle was struck 

from the rear while he was in the performance of duty. He did not stop work.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a physician work activity report dated 

September 11, 2017 by Rebecca A. Fillipin, a physician assistant, who diagnosed a sprain of 

unspecified ligament of the right ankle, headache, and strain of muscle and tendon of unspecified 

wall of thorax. Ms. Fillipin released appellant to return to work regular duty on 

September 12, 2017. 

In a development letter dated September 20, 2017, OWCP notified appellant of the 

deficiencies in his claim and requested that he submit additional evidence. It advised him of the 

type of factual and medical evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for his completion. 

OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

In a report dated September 11, 2017, Dr. John Stuart, a Board-certified internist, evaluated 

appellant for neck pain and stiffnesssubsequent to a motor vehicle accident. He diagnosed cervical 

strain, thoracic strain, headache, and right ankle sprain. 

On September 13, 2017 Dr. Alexia Zgurzynski, an osteopath, discussed appellant’s 

complaints of back pain and noted that he was currently performing his usual employment duties. 

She diagnosed resolved cervical strain, thoracic strain, headache, and right ankle sprain. 

Dr. Stuart, on September 18, 2017, advised that appellant’s headache, right ankle sprain, 

and thoracic strain had resolved as of that date. By decision dated October 25, 2017, OWCP denied 

his traumatic injury claim. It accepted that appellant was involved in an employment-related motor 

vehicle accident on September 11, 2017, as alleged; however, it found that the medical evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish causal relationship.

Appellant subsequently resubmitted the September 11 and 18, 2017 reports from Dr. Stuart

and the September 13, 2017 report from Dr. Zgurzynski.

On June 18, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration. In a June 12, 2018 statement, he 

related that he was involved in a “hit [and] run vehicle crash” on September 11, 2017 while driving 

his work vehicle. Appellant questioned why his medical bills had not been covered and noted that 

he had provided paperwork regarding the accident to his manager. He submitted September 13, 

15, and 18, 2017 reports from a physical therapist. Appellant also submitted x-ray reports of his 

cervical spine, thoracic spine, and right ankle obtained on September 11, 2017.

By decision dated September 13, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration as he had not raised substantive legal arguments or submitted new and relevant 

evidence sufficient to warrant reopening his case for further merit review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a).
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Section 8128(a) of FECA vests OWCP with discretionary authority to determine whether 

to review an award for or against compensation. The Secretary of Labor may review an award for 

or against payment of compensation at any time on his own motion or on application.2

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review pursuant to FECA, the claimant must 

provide evidence or an argument that: (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.3

A request for reconsideration must also be received by OWCP within one year of the date 

of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.4 If OWCP chooses to grant reconsideration, it 

reopens and reviews the case on its merits.5 If the request is timely, but fails to meet at least one 

of the requirements for reconsideration, it will deny the request for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for review on the merits.6

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the 

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

The Board finds that appellant has not alleged or demonstrated that OWCP erroneously 

applied or interpreted a specific point of law. On reconsideration appellant described the 

circumstances surrounding his motor vehicle accident on September 11, 2017 and noted that he 

had provided the appropriate paperwork to his manager. The Board finds that his contentions do

not require reopening of his case for merit review because, in its October 25, 2017 merit decision, 

OWCP had found that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish causal relationship. 

Appellant’s submission of his narrative statement fails to constitute a new argument regarding the 

underlying issue of whether he has established a causal relationship between a diagnosed condition 

and the accepted September 11, 2017 employment incident.7 Thus, the Board finds that he has not 

advanced a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. Consequently, appellant 

 

2 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

3 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see also B.W., Docket No. 18-1259 (issued January 25, 2019).

4

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.

5

Id. at § 10.608(a); see also M.S., Docket No. 18-1041 (issued October 25, 2018).

6

Id. at § 10.608(b); A.C., Docket No. 17-1616 (issued November 27, 2018).

7 T.T., Docket No .18-1682 (issued February 22, 2019).
4

is not entitled to a review of the merits of his claim based on the first and second above-noted 

requirements under section 10.606(b)(3).8

The Board further finds that appellant has not provided relevant and pertinent new evidence 

not previously considered. With his reconsideration request, appellant resubmitted the 

September 11 and 18, 2017 reports from Dr. Stuart and the September 13, 2017 report from

Dr. Zgurzynski. The Board has held, however, that evidence that is duplicative of evidence 

previously of record does not warrant further merit review.9 

Appellant further submitted physical therapy reports and x-rays reports of his cervical 

spine, thoracic spine, and right ankle dated September 2017. The physical therapy and x-ray 

reports, however, fail to address the underlying issue of causation. The submission of evidence 

that does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.10 

Consequently, as appellant did not provide relevant and pertinent new evidence, he is not entitled

to a merit review based on the third requirement under section 10.606(b)(3).11

The Board, accordingly, finds that appellant did not 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.12

On appeal appellant asserts that his manager advised him that his medical expenses would 

be paid by the owner of the vehicle who caused the collision. As discussed, however, the evidence 

he submitted on reconsideration has not met the requirements to reopen his case for a review of 

the merits of the claim.13

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the 

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

 

8 C.B., Docket No. 18-1108 (issued January 22, 2019).

9 See supra note 7.

10 K.F., Docket No. 18-1279 (issued February 22, 2019).

11 R.L., Docket No. 18-0175 (issued September 5, 2018).

12 See L.A., Docket No. 18-1226 (issue December 28, 2018).

13 See J.V., Docket No. 18-1534 (issued February 25, 2019).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 13, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 4, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board