United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, GARLAND MAIN 

POST OFFICE, Garland, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1527

Issued: February 8, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 7, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 19, 2018 merit decision

and May 10, 2018 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 has met her burden of proof to establish a bilateral 

trigger finger injury causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment; and 

(2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her

claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 11, 2018 appellant, then a 62-year-old secretary, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed trigger finger of the middle fingers on both hands 

due to keyboarding during a majority of her workday while at the employing establishment. She 

claimed that keyboarding caused her middle fingers to lock and resulted in severe pain in her finger 

joints. Appellant noted that she previously had an occupational disease that consisted of carpal 

tunnel syndrome and trigger finger. She noted that she first became aware of her claimed condition 

and its relationship to her federal employment on December 3, 2017. 

In an accompanying narrative statement dated February 11, 2018, appellant again 

attributed her trigger finger condition to keyboarding while at work. She related that she had 

worked at the employing establishment for 31 years. Appellant was originally hired as a computer 

forwarding system clerk and held this position for 20 years. She worked in her current secretary 

position for eight and one-half years. Appellant typed at a computer workstation six-to-seven 

hours a day, five days a week. She noted that, in 2014, she was diagnosed as having carpal tunnel 

syndrome and trigger thumb. Appellant underwent carpal tunnel release and release of the tendon 

that aggravated her trigger thumb. 

OWCP, by development letter dated February 14, 2018, advised appellant of the factual 

and medical deficiencies of her claim. It provided a questionnaire for her completion regarding 

the circumstances of the injury. Appellant was also asked to provide a narrative medical report 

from her physician which contained a detailed description of findings and diagnoses, explaining 

how the claimed work activities caused, contributed to, or aggravated her medical condition. By 

separate letter of the same date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide 

additional factual information concerning her alleged injury, to include comments from a 

knowledgeable supervisor on the accuracy of appellant’s statements. It afforded appellant and the 

employing establishment 30 days to submit the requested evidence. No further evidence was 

received. 

By decision dated March 19, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition in 

connection with the accepted employment factors. It noted that she had not submitted any medical 

evidence in response to its February 14, 2018 development letter. 

On April 23, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration. No additional evidence or 

argument in support of her reconsideration request was received. 

By decision dated May 10, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of her claim, finding that she had neither raised substantive legal questions nor submitted

new and relevant evidence sufficient to require further merit review. It noted that no additional 

evidence was received as part of the reconsideration request. 
3

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 by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial 

evidence, including that he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty, and that any 

specific condition or disability from work for which he or she claims compensation is causally 

related to that employment injury.3

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 diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified 

by the claimant.4

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

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.5 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.6 

Neither the fact that the condition became apparent during a period of employment, nor the belief 

that the condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or incidents is sufficient to 

establish causal relationship.

7

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a bilateral trigger 

finger injury causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. 

OWCP accepted as factual that appellant engaged in repetitive keyboarding in her 

employment duties as a secretary. The issue, therefore, is whether appellant submitted sufficient 

medical evidence to establish that the employment exposure caused or aggravated a bilateral 

trigger finger condition.

By development letter dated February 14, 2018, OWCP requested that appellant submit 

additional evidence in support of her claim, including a comprehensive medical report from her 

treating physician which included a reasoned explanation as to how the work activities identified 

 

2

Id.

3 M.S., Docket No. 17-0980 (issued June 19, 2018).

4

I.D., Docket No. 18-1118 (issued December 31, 2018); R.B., Docket No. 18-0720 (issued November 13, 2018).

5 K.L., Docket No. 18-0937 (issued December 28, 2018).

6 See supra notes 4 and 5.

7 See supra note 5; Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997).
4

by her had caused, contributed to, or aggravated her claimed medical condition. It afforded her 30 

days to respond. Appellant did not submit the requested evidence prior to the issuance of OWCP’s 

March 19, 2018 merit decision. 

Appellant’s burden of proof includes the submission of rationalized medical opinion 

evidence, based on a complete factual and medical background, establishing causal relationship 

between the accepted employment factors and the diagnosed condition.8 The record in this case 

contains no medical evidence. Because appellant has not submitted reasoned medical evidence 

explaining how and why her claimed bilateral trigger finger condition was employment related, 

she has not met her burden of proof.9

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 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.10 Section 10.608(a) 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).11 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.12 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.13

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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

merits of her claim. 

 

8 See supra notes 4 and 5.

9 R.C., Docket No. 17-1294 (issued December 20, 2018).

10 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

11 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(a).

12 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3).

13 Id. at § 10.608(b).
5

OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim for a bilateral trigger finger condition 

causally related to the accepted factors of her employment. Thereafter, it denied her timely 

reconsideration request without reviewing the merits of her claim. 

The Board finds that appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted 

a specific point of law, nor did she advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered 

by OWCP, or provide relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by OWCP. 

Appellant’s April 23, 2018 reconsideration request consisted only of a checkmark on an 

appeal request form indicating that she wanted reconsideration. She did not offer any argument or 

submit any evidence in support of her request. Appellant suggested no reason for OWCP to 

reconsider the denial of her occupational disease claim. Such a bare request is insufficient to 

warrant a reopening of her case.14 Accordingly, 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. 

On appeal appellant contends that she submitted medical evidence together with her 

request for reconsideration. As found above, however, the record does not show that any evidence 

accompanied her April 23, 2018 reconsideration request. As the record does not contain any new 

evidence submitted prior to the issuance of OWCP’s May 10, 2018 nonmerit decision, the Board 

finds that OWCP properly declined to reopen her claim for a merit review.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a bilateral trigger 

finger injury causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. The Board further 

finds that OWCP properly denied her request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim under 

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

 

14 See J.H., Docket No. 18-0875 (issued October 11, 2018); J.R., Docket No. 17-1312 (issued September 20, 2017).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 10 and March 19, 2018 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: February 8, 2019

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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