United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MAIN POST OFFICE, 

Greensboro, NC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0822

Issued: July 1, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Joanne Marie Wright, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 11, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 19, 2017 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from OWCP’s last merit decision dated October 25, 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 this case.3

 

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.

3 The Board notes that, following the December 19, 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

ISSUE

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

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 7, 2014 appellant, then a 32-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed “occupational stress” due to factors of her federal 

employment. She explained that a series of events contributed to her condition, including that a 

truck driver for the employing establishment with whom she had worked, M.S., murdered another 

postal clerk whom she knew. Appellant indicated that M.S. had also harassed her while at the 

employing establishment, he had her contact information, and he would send her inappropriate 

photos to her phone. She explained that contemporaneously with the murder incident she was 

verbally assaulted by a coworker who cursed at her while at the time clock and she was required 

to call the police on a postal customer who had followed her and yelled at her over a piece of 

previously returned mail. Appellant explained that due to the murder by M.S. she was in 

consultation with the Employee Assistance Program (EAP)4and that the acts of her coworker and 

the postal customer were more than she could take emotionally.5 She noted that she did not feel 

safe at work. Appellant did not stop work. 

A June 7, 2014 police report noted that appellant had called for assistance due to a man 

cursing at her and also noted that she complained that she was feeling threatened. 

In a June 7, 2014 duty status report (Form CA-17), a family practitioner with an illegible 

signature noted that appellant presented after being followed by a postal customer who was yelling 

and screaming. The physician noted several potential diagnoses and restricted appellant from 

returning to work until cleared by a mental health professional. 

In a June 10, 2014 Form CA-17 report, Dr. Rupinda Kaur, a Board-certified psychiatrist, 

restricted appellant from returning to work due to her psychiatric condition. She noted appellant 

had been followed down the street by a postal customer who yelled and screamed at her. Dr. Kaur 

noted she was fearful, shaky, nervous, nauseous, had disturbed sleep at night, and was 

apprehensive due to acute stress. She diagnosed acute stress disorder. In a June 16, 2014 report,

Dr. Kaur diagnosed acute stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She reported 

the history of a March 24, 2014 incident in which appellant’s coworker killed one lady, beat 

another one severely, and then committed suicide. Dr. Kaur further indicated that a male coworker

had threatened and cursed at appellant at work and that on June 7, 2014 a customer followed her 

and yelled at her while on her mail route. She concluded that appellant was traumatized by these 

events and was experiencing recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive flashbacks and distressing 

memories of these traumatic events. 

 

4 Appellant submitted a note from a USPS EAP consultant who noted that appellant had contacted EAP on April 9, 

2014 and had continued counseling.

5

In a record of a telephone call dated June 24, 2014, OWCP noted that appellant had called to inform them that the 

narrative statement on her claim form was not accurate, was illegible, and was completed without giving her the time 

she requested to provide greater detail.
3

In a letter dated June 17, 2014, Dr. Kaur noted that appellant had been under psychiatric 

care after a close friend passed away. She noted that on March 24, 2014 another coworker killed 

one lady, severely beat another, and then committed suicide. Dr. Kaur noted appellant’s trauma 

and noted examination findings. She noted that appellant presented with multiple signs and 

symptoms of PTSD and that she was having flashbacks to the traumatic events. 

In a letter dated June 17, 2014, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s 

claim. It noted that its controversion was based on fact of injury, performance of duty, and causal 

relationship. The employing establishment also submitted a handwritten statement from A.M. who 

asserted that the claim should be denied because the incident with the postal customer who was 

angry was an occurrence that all carriers encounter and the customer was only angry because he 

wanted mail that appellant had returned the day prior.6

In a development letter dated June 24, 2014, appellant was informed of the deficiencies of 

her claim and was instructed as to the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to establish 

her claim. OWCP included a questionnaire for her completion. On the same date, it also sent a 

development letter to the employing establishment requesting information relative to the claim. 

OWCP afforded both appellant and the employing establishment 30 days to respond. 

Appellant submitted numerous statements from coworkers and others in support of her 

claim. These statements included a June 23, 2014 statement by S.I., a coworker, who explained 

the murder-suicide by M.S. and explained its traumatic nature on coworkers. She noted that the 

police had informed the postal service that M.S. was possibly targeting postal employees. S.I. 

asserted that the employing establishment completely disregarded the workers’ safety as they 

failed to inform them of the actions of M.S. and the possibility he was targeting them prior to his 

suicide. She explained that appellant called her when news reports surfaced because she was 

disturbed due to her interactions with M.S. who had asked her out several times. S.I. noted that 

appellant had rebuffed the advances of M.S. and was especially worried and in shock because she 

knew M.S. personally and nobody knew his motives for his actions, but the actions were against 

other women. A June 26, 2014 statement of T.R., a coworker, claimed that female employees 

were generally subjected to a hostile environment. 

On July 4, 2014 appellant responded to the development questionnaire. On July 8, 2014 

she submitted a detailed statement of the factual history of her development of psychiatric 

conditions due to incidents involving her work. Appellant also submitted news articles about the 

murder-suicide incident. Additional statements were also submitted regarding the incident 

including one from B.M. Appellant also submitted a statement of C.G., a postal customer, who 

witnessed an angry man who was agitated towards appellant and a statement of T.C., a coworker,

who observed appellant in an anxious and disoriented state after she was threatened by a customer. 

In a June 26, 2014 statement, C.B., an employing establishment representative, asserted 

that appellant’s claim should be denied. She explained that the customer had been upset with 

appellant, but she finished her route and had returned to work. C.B. also noted that appellant had 

informed A.M., a coworker, of her interactions with M.S. who she stated had sent her photographs 

 

6 The employing establishment also submitted an unsigned and undated handwritten statement which alleged that 

the incident with the customer was a parking dispute and appellant handled the situation without his involvement.
4

of his penis and that stressed her out. She noted that appellant had not made complaints until after 

M.S. committed suicide. 

In a Form CA-17 duty status report, dated July 30, 2014, Dr. Kaur noted that appellant’s 

psychiatric condition was improving. An accompanying note indicated that appellant could return 

to work on August 11, 2014. On September 8, 2014 Dr. Kaur noted that her work should be 

limited to eight hours per day to avoid a relapse.

On October 21, 2014 OWCP received a statement from appellant explaining her difficulties 

following her return to work. Appellant also contested the statements of employing establishment 

personnel. In a supplemental statement, received on October 24, 2014, she noted examples of 

conflict she was experiencing in the workplace. A copy of a grievance form was also submitted. 

By decision dated December 19, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition 

claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that a medical 

condition arose during the course of employment and within the scope of compensable work 

factors. It found that there were no accepted events that were compensable factors of employment 

and, while the events involving M.S. occurred as alleged, they were not directed at appellant, nor 

did they involve appellant. OWCP found that the fact that appellant used to work with M.S. and 

knew at least one of his victims were not compensable factors of her federal employment. It further 

found that a postal customer had not verbally abused her on June 7, 2014 as alleged.

On January 15, 2015 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. A telephonic hearing was held on July 16, 2015. 

Appellant submitted medical reports from Dr. Tullo Teresa, Board-certified in internal medicine, 

who noted that appellant should be excused from work.

On August 16, 2015 appellant’s representative submitted new evidence including 

documents relating to criminal convictions of the postal customer who was alleged to have 

physically and verbally threatened appellant. 

On August 28, 2015 the employing establishment submitted a September 13, 2013 Step B 

grievance decision which it asserted established that the working environment was safe for all 

employees. 

By decision dated September 29, 2015, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

December 19, 2014 decision. 

On September 24, 2016 appellant, through her representative, requested reconsideration. 

By decision dated October 25, 2016, OWCP denied modification of the September 29, 2015 

decision. 

On October 17, 2017 appellant, through her representative, requested reconsideration of 

the October 25, 2016 decision. She advised that new evidence was submitted in support of the 

request for reconsideration. In an attached September 2, 2017 medical report, received by OWCP 

on October 17, 2017, Dr. Kaur opined that appellant’s conditions were a result of the March 24, 

2014 incident involving M.S. She further noted that appellant had a follow-up visit on May 15, 

2017 during which she explained that she continued to be ridiculed and demeaned at work, causing 

additional trauma and exaggeration of her preexisting symptoms from PTSD. Dr. Kaur observed 
5

that appellant was distraught and distressed during this visit. Counsel also set forth additional 

arguments in support of reconsideration. She cited to two cases which she alleged supported 

finding a compensable factor of employment based upon the aftermath of a traumatic event and a 

series of cases in which postal employees had been verbally assaulted by customers, which were 

found to be compensable employment factors. 

By decision dated December 19, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration of the merits of her claim.

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 compensation at any time on his or her own motion or on application.7

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

provide evidence or an argument which: (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.8

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.9 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

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

requirements for reconsideration, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for review on the merits.10

ANALYSIS

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

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

In support of the reconsideration request dated October 17, 2017, appellant’s representative 

cited to a series of Board decisions which she alleged supported the finding of compensable 

employment factors. The request included the representative’s explanation as to why each case 

was applicable to the claimed factors of employment as were found factual. The Board finds that 

the representative’s reconsideration request constitutes relevant legal argument not previously 

 

7 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019); see also V.P., Docket No. 17-1287 

(issued October 10, 2017); D.L., Docket No. 09-1549 (issued February 23, 2010); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).

8 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see L.D., id.; see also L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 (issued March 3, 2010); C.N., Docket 

No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008).

9

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 its 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.

10 Id. at § 10.608(b); A.G., Docket No 19-0113 (issued July 12, 2019).
6

considered by OWCP which was asserted to establish that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law. It is relevant argument not yet addressed, thus denying appellant 

an opportunity to correct deficiencies, if any, in her claim. The Board therefore finds that appellant 

has established that OWCP improperly denied the request for a reconsideration of the merits of 

her claim based on the two initial requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).

The Board further finds that appellant submitted new and relevant evidence in support of 

her October 17, 2017 request for reconsideration. OWCP failed to review Dr. Kaur’s September 2, 

2017 report, which was submitted with her request. In this new report, appellant’s attending 

physician provides additional detail as to the nature and extent of appellant’s psychiatric condition 

and her ability to interact with management at the employing establishment based upon the 

June 2014 incidents which are alleged as employment factors in this case. Thus, the Board finds 

that this attending physician’s report constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence under the 

third requirement of 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b). Appellant’s request for reconsideration therefore met 

the third standard for obtaining merit review of her case under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

Accordingly, she is entitled to a merit review of her claim.11

The Board will therefore set aside OWCP’s December 19, 2017 decision and remand the 

case for an appropriate merit decision on appellant’s claim.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP improperly 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 December 19, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded to OWCP for further 

proceedings consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: July 1, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

11 See M.C., Docket No. 17-1983 (issued August 17, 2018); S.H., Docket No. 17-1101 (issued August 3, 2017);

Helen E. Tschantz, 39 ECAB 1382 (1988).