United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.F., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Cupertino, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1877

Issued: February 6, 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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 5, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 6, 2017 merit 

decision and a May 16, 2017 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 

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

 

1 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from OWCP’s March 6, 2017 decision was Saturday

September 2, 2017. The next business day, Monday September 4, 2017, was a federal holiday. When the final day 

to request an appeal falls on a weekend or federal holiday, the claimant has until the next business day to timely file 

an appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(2). The appeal was therefore timely received on Tuesday, September 5, 2017. 

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the

performance of duty on January 16, 2017, as alleged; and (2) whether OWCP properly denied 

appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 23, 2017 appellant, then a 31-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 16, 2017 he sustained unspecified injuries as a result 

of a motor vehicle accident. He noted that the incident occurred at 10:15 a.m., but he did not 

relate where the incident occurred. Appellant stopped work on January 16, 2017. 

The employing establishment issued an authorization for examination and/or treatment

(Form CA-16) on January 16, 2017. An attached report from Dr. Joseph Cherian, a family 

medicine physician, did not contain a diagnosis, but did note that appellant should limit 

standing/walking to two hours per day; that appellant should limit pushing and pulling to 25 

pounds; and that appellant should not kneel, squat, or climb. In a work status report of the same 

date, Dr. Cherian diagnosed a right lower leg contusion; cervical strain; contusions of the left 

knee and lower leg; and contusion of the right forearm. He reported that appellant could return 

to modified-duty work.3

In a report dated January 23, 2017, Dr. Cherian noted a diagnosis of a right lower leg 

contusion and he related that appellant could return to work without restrictions as of 

March 9, 2017. 

By development letter dated January 27, 2017, OWCP informed appellant of the evidence 

necessary to establish his claim. It noted that he had not submitted sufficient factual or medical 

evidence to establish his claim and requested that he respond to its inquiries including a detailed 

description of how the motor vehicle incident occurred. Appellant was afforded 30 days to 

submit the necessary evidence. 

In a report dated January 23, 2017, Dr. Cherian noted that appellant felt 40 percent better 

since the motor vehicle incident. Appellant related his history of injury to Dr. Cherian, stating 

that he had been driving a postal vehicle when he lost control and hit the barrier on the inside of 

a bend.

By decision dated March 6, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation. It 

found that he had not established that the event of January 16, 2017 occurred in the performance 

of duty. OWCP found that appellant did not respond to its questionnaire and had failed to

 

3 The Board notes that on January 16, 2017, an authorization for examination and/or treatment form (Form 

CA-16) was completed by an employing establishment and authorized medical treatment. Where an employing 

establishment properly executes a Form CA-16 authorizing medical treatment related to a claim for a work injury, 

the form creates a contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee directly, to pay for the cost of the 

examination/treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim. See Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).

The period for which treatment is authorized by a Form CA-16 is limited to 60 days from the date of issuance, 

unless terminated earlier by OWCP. See 20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c).
3

provide a detailed description of the incident to establish that it occurred at the time, place, and 

in the manner alleged. 

On April 29, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s March 6, 2017 

decision. With his request for reconsideration, he resubmitted the January 16 and 23, 2017 

reports from Dr. Cherian. 

By decision dated May 16, 2017, OWCP declined to review the merits of appellant’s 

claim, noting that he had neither raised substantive legal questions nor included relevant and

pertinent new evidence with his request for reconsideration. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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 period of FECA, that an injury5 was sustained in the performance of duty as 

alleged, and that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is 

causally related to the employment injury.6

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it must first be determined whether fact of injury has been established. A 

fact of injury determination is based on two elements. First, the employee must submit sufficient 

evidence to establish that he actually experienced the employment incident at the time, place, and 

in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit sufficient evidence, generally only in 

the form of medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury. 

An employee may establish that the employment incident occurred as alleged, but fail to show 

that his or her condition relates to the employment incident.7

FECA provides for payment of compensation for the disability or death of an employee 

resulting from personal injury sustained while in the performance of duty.

8

 The phrase “while in 

the performance of duty” has been interpreted by the Board to be the equivalent of the commonly 

found prerequisite in workers’ compensation law of “arising out of and in the course of 

employment.” In addressing the issue, the Board has held that for an incident to occur in the 

course of employment, in general, an injury must occur: (1) at a time when the employee may 

 

4 Supra note 2.

5 OWCP’s regulations define a traumatic injury as a condition of the body caused by a specific event or incident, 

or series of events of incidents, within a single workday or shift. Such condition must be caused by external force, 

including stress or strain, which is identifiable as to time and place of occurrence and member or function of the 

body affected. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee).

6 T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393 (2008); see Steven S. Saleh, 55 ECAB 169, 171-72 (2003); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989).

7

Id. See Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997); John J. Carlone 41 ECAB 354, 356-57 (1989).

8 Supra note 2. 
4

reasonably be stated to be engaged in his or her master’s business; (2) at a place where he or she 

may reasonably be expected to be in connection with the employment; and (3) while he or she 

was reasonably fulfilling the duties of his or her employment or engaged in doing something 

incidental thereto.9

There are four categories of off-premises employees recognized by OWCP in its 

procedures: (1) Messengers, letter carriers and chauffeurs who, by the nature of their work, 

perform service away from the employing establishment’s premises; (2) traveling auditors and 

inspectors whose work requires them to be in a travel status; (3) workers having a fixed place of 

employment who are sent on errands or special missions by the employing establishment; and 

(4) workers who perform services at home for their employing establishment.

10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

Appellant alleged that on January 16, 2017 he sustained injury as a result of an 

employment-related motor vehicle accident which occurred at 10:15 a.m. As part of his burden 

of proof, he must establish all the essential elements of his claim, including that the January 16, 

2017 incident occurred in the performance of duty at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.11 

OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that he did not provide sufficient details describing the 

incident to establish that it occurred in the performance of duty. 

The Board finds that appellant failed to establish that he sustained an injury in the 

performance of duty on January 16, 2017. 

Appellant’s duties as a letter carrier require that he perform employment duties in a 

vehicle, off the employing establishment’s premises.12 While the record reflects that the incident 

occurred during his work hours, appellant has not sufficiently described the alleged January 16, 

2017 incident to establish that it occurred in the performance of duty.13 Other than reporting the 

time of the incident, appellant has not provided sufficient details to establish that he was at a 

place where he was reasonably expected to be and at a time when he was fulfilling duties of his 

federal employment. The only other account of the incident comes from the reports of

Dr. Cherian, who stated that appellant reported driving an employing establishment vehicle when 

he lost control and hit a barrier on the inside of a bend. Appellant failed to describe where the 

accident occurred, the purpose of his trip, or describe why he was on the specific route at the 

time of the accident.14 

 

9

J.E., 59 ECAB 119 (2007).

10 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Performance of Duty, Chapter 2.804.5(a)

(August 1992); see also N.B., Docket No. 14-1092 (issued February 26, 2015). 

11 Id. 

12 Supra note 9. 

13 M.H., Docket No. 11-0644 (issued September 30, 2011). 

14 Id.
5

In a letter dated January 27, 2017, OWCP advised him of the deficiencies of his claim 

and requested additional factual evidence to establish that the alleged vehicle accident occurred 

in the performance of duty. Appellant did not submit any additional statements to OWCP 

describing the alleged January 16, 2017 incident or providing additional details. Thus, he did not 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that the January 16, 2017 incident occurred in the 

performance of duty, as alleged. 

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

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128(a), OWCP’s 

regulations provide that the evidence or argument submitted by a claimant must: (1) show that 

OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advance a relevant legal 

argument not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitute relevant and pertinent new 

evidence not previously considered by OWCP.15 Section 10.608(b) of OWCP’s regulations 

provide that, when an application for reconsideration does not meet at least one of the three 

requirements enumerated under section 10.606(b)(3), OWCP will deny the application 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 his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

The issue is whether appellant met any of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3), 

requiring OWCP to reopen the case for review of the merits of the claim. 

In his request for reconsideration, appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied 

or interpreted a specific point of law, nor did he advance a new and relevant legal argument not 

previously considered by OWCP. The Board therefore finds that appellant 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).

The Board further finds that appellant did not submit relevant or pertinent new evidence 

not previously considered by OWCP. In his April 12, 2017 request for reconsideration, appellant 

merely requested that OWCP review the medical evidence submitted. He resubmitted the 

January 16 and 23, 2017 reports from Dr. Cherian, which had already been considered in 

 

15 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); D.K., 59 ECAB 141, 146 (2007).

16 Id. at § 10.608(b); see K.H., 59 ECAB 495, 499 (2008).
6

OWCP’s March 6, 2017 decision. Evidence that repeats or duplicates evidence already in the 

case record has no evidentiary value and does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.17

The Board accordingly finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a 

specific point of law, advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP, or 

submit relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish an injury in 

the performance of duty on January 16, 2017, as alleged. The Board further finds that OWCP 

properly denied his request for reconsideration of the merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a).

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decisions of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs dated May 16 and March 6, 2017 are affirmed.

Issued: February 6, 2018

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

 

17 J.J., Docket No. 17-0614 (issued June 13, 2017).