United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Colorado Springs, CO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0363

Issued: July 18, 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 December 10, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 22, 2018 merit decision 

and an October 23, 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 that her 

cervical, lumbar, thoracic, and bilateral lower extremity conditions were causally related to the 

accepted December 16, 2015 employment incident; 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 4, 2016 appellant, then a 60-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that, on December 16, 2015, she sustained contusions and bruises to her left 

hip and buttocks when she slipped on ice and fell to the ground while in the performance of duty.

In an initial evaluation report dated March 17, 2016, Dr. John M. Tyler, Board-certified in 

physical medicine and rehabilitation, indicated that he had treated appellant for two previous 

injuries that she sustained at work. He described a November 1999 cervical injury and May 4, 

2001 lumbar spine injury. Dr. Tyler related that appellant’s third injury occurred on December 16, 

2015 when she slipped and fell on black ice, landing on her left elbow and hip, while working as 

a letter carrier. Upon physical examination of appellant’s cervical spine, he observed segmental 

dysfunctions on the left at C3 and at C5 and light palpation over the myofascial components in the 

posterolateral cervical spine. Examination of appellant’s thoracic spine revealed significant acute 

spasm and a few localized trigger points from T7 to approximately T12. Dr. Tyler reported that 

examination of appellant’s low back demonstrated significant abnormality with an upslope of the 

left posterior-superior iliac spine over the right and no leg length discrepancy. He diagnosed 

segmental dysfunctions in the cervical and thoracic spine (left C3, C5, and T7), localized spasm 

with active trigger point formation in the paraspinal muscles and iliocostalis thoracic muscles on 

the left between T7 and T12, severe pelvic obliquity with upslope of the left posterior-superior 

iliac spine over the right secondary to increased myofascial tone and spasms, and possible 

reaggravation of lumbar facet pathology/rule out disc herniation in the lower lumbar spine. 

Dr. Tyler opined that 100 percent of appellant’s current symptomatology that extended from the 

mid-thoracic to lower-thoracic spine would be related to this new injury, 75 percent of appellant’s 

current paralumbar pain was related to the new injury, and 35 percent of appellant’s current 

symptomatology in the superomedial parascapular and paracervical regions would be related to

the new injury. 

A lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report dated March 18, 2016 

showed mild degenerative changes of the L3-4 disc space with a small posterior left paracentral 

desiccated disc herniation, moderate degenerative changes of the L5-S1 disc space with loss of 

weight, and mild degenerative changes of the L4-5 disc space without evidence of nerve root 

impingement or cauda equina compression.

Appellant was also treated by Dr. Daniel Barbuto, a chiropractor. In an initial status report 

dated March 28, 2016, Dr. Barbuto described the December 16, 2015 work incident and provided 

examination findings of appellant’s cervical and lumbar spine. He diagnosed cervical through 

gluteal myofascial strains, with associated axial mechanical dysfunctions and sacroiliac 

dysfunction with associated pelvic unleveling/obliquity. Dr. Barbuto continued to treat appellant 

and provided status reports dated March 30 to May 11, 2016.

Dr. Tyler continued to treat appellant and provided a note dated April 4, 2016, which 

related that appellant was treated with a second trigger point injection after a December 16, 2015 

employment injury. 

In a development letter dated June 2, 2016, OWCP noted that when appellant’s claim was

first received it appeared to be a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time from work 
3

and was therefore administratively approved for payment of a limited amount of medical expenses. 

It reported that the medical evidence addressing her claim had not been formally considered and 

that additional factual and medical evidence was necessary to establish her claim. OWCP 

requested that appellant provide additional factual and medical evidence to establish her claim and 

also provided a questionnaire for completion. It afforded her 30 days to provide the necessary 

factual information and medical evidence.

OWCP received additional progress notes from Dr. Tyler dated April 11 through 25, 2016. 

He indicated that appellant returned for evaluation and trigger point injections in her thoracic and 

lumbar spine. Appellant continued to complain of soreness in the lower left parathoracic region 

posteriorly and extending into the mid-axillary line. 

By decision dated July 6, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It accepted that the 

December 16, 2015 employment incident occurred as alleged, but denied the claim because the 

evidence of record did not establish a valid medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted 

employment incident. OWCP therefore found that appellant had failed to establish the medical 

component of fact of injury. It concluded, therefore, that she had not met the requirements to 

establish an injury as defined by FECA.

On December 6, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration. She asserted that she suffered 

from several medical issues due to the December 16, 2015 employment incident, including plantar 

fasciitis on the left, sciatic nerve on both sides of the lower back, stiff neck, pressure, and pain, 

right and left arm symptoms, and left shoulder symptoms. 

OWCP subsequently received a letter dated August 16, 2016 by Dr. Tyler. Dr. Tyler

indicated that his March 17, 2016 report clearly outlined the events of the December 16, 2015 

employment incident and his impressions based upon that examination.

By decision dated January 26, 2017, OWCP denied modification of the July 6, 2016 

decision.

On April 24, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration.

In a report dated March 27, 2017, Dr. Jack L. Rook, Board-certified in pain medicine and 

physical medicine and rehabilitation, related that appellant had worked for the employing 

establishment as a letter carrier since 1998 and had two work-related injuries in November 1999 

and May 2001, which resulted in chronic neck and back pain. He related that appellant’s 

conditions were stable until a December 16, 2015 traumatic event when she slipped and fell on 

black ice while delivering mail. Dr. Rook reported that “as a result of this acute injury she 

developed a worsening of chronic pain involving her neck, upper back, and low back.” He also 

noted new symptoms of bilateral leg pain and sciatica. Dr. Rook explained that prior to the 

December 16, 2015 employment incident, appellant had experienced mild, intermittent low back 

pain and fairly constant neck and upper back muscular discomfort. He reported that after the 

December 16, 2015 slip and fall injury, appellant has experienced a “compelling increase in neck, 

upper, and lower back pain.”

Dr. Rook examined appellant’s lumbar spine and noted severe tenderness with palpation 

of bilateral lumbar paraspinal muscles and underlying facet joints. He also noted moderate-to-
4

severe tenderness of the bilateral sacroiliac joints. Straight leg raise testing was negative 

bilaterally. Pinprick sensation was intact in all lower extremity dermatomes and lower extremity 

motor strength was 5/5. Dr. Rook reported that examination of appellant’s upper extremities 

revealed normal grip strength and motor strength. Examination of appellant’s neck revealed 

palpable spasm and tenderness involving the left more than right-sided paracervical, trapezius, and 

parathoracic muscles. Dr. Rook diagnosed permanent aggravation of cervical myofascial pain 

syndrome, permanent aggravation of thoracic myofascial pain syndrome, permanent aggravation 

of lumbar myofascial pain syndrome, permanent aggravation of lumbar degenerative disc disease, 

and bilateral lower extremity sciatica. He opined that appellant sustained an acute injury while at 

work on December 16, 2015, which resulted in the above diagnoses. 

Dr. Rook explained that the slip and fall on ice caused appellant’s head to “jerk violently 

to her left, with forces then transferred across her shoulders and upper back.” He noted that the 

left hip impact caused traumatic forces to spread to her low back and appellant developed 

immediate low back pain with right lower extremity sciatica. Dr. Rook also pointed out that 

appellant developed a marked increase in upper and lower back pain after the slip and fall injury 

and new symptoms of bilateral lower extremity sciatica. He concluded that appellant sustained a 

“permanent aggravation” of her neck and back conditions. 

By decision dated July 12, 2017, OWCP denied modification of the January 26, 2017 

decision. 

On December 14, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration. She alleged that Dr. Tyler 

provided medical diagnoses of her conditions and established fact of injury. 

In a report dated November 8, 2017, Dr. Tyler related that he had treated appellant over the 

years for pain management following a November 1999 lumbar injury. He noted the 

December 16, 2015 employment incident and referenced his initial evaluation findings. Dr. Tyler 

disagreed with OWCP’s finding that he had not identified a medical diagnosis or clearly explained

causal relationship. He reported that appellant had diagnoses of segmental dysfunction of the 

cervical and thoracic spine, localized muscle spasms with active trigger point formation in the 

paraspinal muscles and iliocostalis thoracic muscles on the left between T7 and T12, severe pelvic 

obliquity with upslope of the left posterior-superior iliac spine over the right, and possible reaggravation of lumbar facet pathology/rule out disc herniation in the lower lumbar spine. Dr. Tyler 

explained that a portion of appellant’s conditions were an aggravation of a preexisting condition, 

which were worsened either temporarily or permanently. He reported that appellant’s mid-thoracic 

pain was 100 percent related to the December 2015 employment injury. 

By decision dated March 8, 2018, OWCP modified its July 12, 2017 decision regarding 

fact of injury and found that the new medical evidence established diagnosed conditions. 

However, it denied appellant’s claim finding insufficient medical evidence to establish causal 

relationship between her diagnosed medical conditions and the accepted December 16, 2015 

employment incident. 

On March 27, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration. She asserted that Dr. Rock 

provided medical evidence to establish causal relationship between her diagnosed conditions and 
5

the December 16, 2015 employment injury. Appellant resubmitted Dr. Rook’s March 27, 2017 

report and Dr. Tyler’s reports dated March 17 to May 9, 2016.

By decision dated June 22, 2018, OWCP denied modification of the March 8, 2018 

decision. It found that the medical evidence submitted failed to establish that appellant’s 

diagnosed conditions were causally related to the accepted December 16, 2015 employment 

incident. 

On July 31, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration. She alleged that Dr. Rook, in his 

March 27, 2017 report, adequately explained the causal relationship between her diagnosed 

cervical strain, thoracic strain, permanent aggravation of lumbar degenerative disease, and bilateral 

lower extremity sciatica and the accepted December 16, 2015 employment incident. She 

resubmitted Dr. Rook’s March 27, 2017 report and Dr. Tyler’s reports dated March 17, 2016 to 

November 8, 2017. 

By decision dated October 23, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

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

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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation of FECA,3that an injury 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.4 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim, 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.5

In order to determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, OWCP must first determine whether fact of injury has been established.6 

There are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must submit 

sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the 

time, place, and in the manner alleged.7 Second, the employee must submit evidence, generally 

 

2

Id.

3 S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989). 

4

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

5 K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

6 D.B., Docket No. 18-1348 (issued January 4, 2019); S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007).

7 D.S., Docket No. 17-1422 (issued November 9, 2017); Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006).
6

only in the form of probative medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused 

a personal injury.8

To establish causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant disability 

claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit rationalized medical 

opinion evidence.9 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background of the employee, 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 factor(s) identified by the employee.10 The weight of the medical 

evidence is determined by its reliability, its probative value, its convincing quality, the care of 

analysis manifested, and the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.11

In any case where a preexisting condition involving the same part of the body is present 

and the issue of causal relationship therefore involves aggravation, acceleration or precipitation, 

the physician must provide a rationalized medical opinion that differentiates between the effects 

of the work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition.12

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that her cervical, 

lumbar, thoracic, and bilateral lower extremity conditions were causally related to the accepted 

December 16, 2015 employment incident.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a series of reports from Dr. Tyler dated 

March 17, 2016 through November 8, 2017. In his initial examination report, he discussed 

appellant’s history, including her previous cervical and lumbar injuries, and accurately described 

the December 16, 2015 employment incident. Dr. Tyler reported examination findings related to 

appellant’s cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spines. He diagnosed segmental dysfunctions in the 

cervical and thoracic spine (left C3, C5, and T7), localized spasm with active trigger point 

formation in the paraspinal muscles and iliocostalis thoracic muscles on the left between T7 and 

T12, severe pelvic obliquity with upslope of the left posterior-superior iliac spine over the right 

secondary to increased myofascial tone and spasms, and possible reaggravation of lumbar facet 

pathology/rule out disc herniation in the lower lumbar spine. Dr. Tyler opined that 100 percent of 

appellant’s current symptomatology that extended from the mid-thoracic to lower-thoracic spine 

would be related to this new injury, 75 percent of appellant’s current paralumbar pain was related 

to the new injury, and 35 percent of appellant’s current symptomatology in the superomedial 

 

8 B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 

354 (1989).

9 See S.A., Docket No. 18-0399 (issued October 16, 2018); see also Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

10 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 

ECAB 345 (1989).

11 James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991).

12 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013); 

N.S., Docket No. 19-0167 (issued June 21, 2019).
7

parascapular and paracervical regions would be related to the new injury. In a November 8, 2017 

report, he further explained that appellant’s mid-thoracic symptomatology was 100 percent related 

to the December 2015 employment incident and that a portion of appellant’s other conditions were 

an aggravation of her preexisting conditions.

Although Dr. Tyler opined that the accepted December 16, 2015 employment incident was 

directly related to some of appellant’s medical conditions and had aggravated appellant’s 

preexisting cervical and lumbar conditions, he did not explain how the diagnosed conditions were 

causally related to or worsened by the accepted employment incident. The Board has held that a 

physician must provide a narrative description of the identified employment incident and a 

reasoned opinion on whether the employment incident described had caused or contributed to 

appellant’s diagnosed medical conditions.13 Because Dr. Tyler has not provided a reasoned 

opinion explaining how the December 15, 2016 employment incident caused or aggravated 

appellant’s lumbar, cervical, or thoracic conditions, his reports are insufficient to establish her 

claim. The need for rationalized medical opinion evidence is particularly important in this case 

because appellant had previously injured her cervical and lumbar spine.14 

Appellant was also treated by Dr. Rook. In a report dated March 27, 2017, he noted 

appellant’s two previous injuries and described that on December 16, 2015 she suffered a third 

injury when she slipped and fell at work. Dr. Rook provided examination findings and diagnosed 

permanent aggravation of cervical myofascial pain syndrome, permanent aggravation of thoracic 

myofascial pain syndrome, permanent aggravation of lumbar myofascial pain syndrome, 

permanent aggravation of lumbar degenerative disc disease, and bilateral lower extremity sciatica. 

He opined that appellant sustained an acute injury while at work on December 16, 2015 and a 

“permanent aggravation” of her neck and back conditions. Dr. Rook further explained that when 

appellant fell down, her head jerked violently to the left and forces transferred across her shoulders 

and upper back. He noted that appellant experienced immediate low back pain and right lower 

extremity sciatica. Dr. Rook also reported that appellant had a marked increase in back pain after 

the December 16, 2015 incident and new symptoms of bilateral lower extremity sciatica. 

While Dr. Rook provided an affirmative opinion on causal relationship, the Board finds 

that he did not adequately explain how the December 16, 2015 employment incident caused 

appellant’s thoracic and bilateral lower extremity conditions or aggravated appellant’s preexisting

cervical and lumbar conditions. A medical report is of limited probative value on the issue of 

causal relationship if it contains a conclusion regarding causal relationship which is unsupported 

by medical rationale.15 Dr. Rook did not provide sufficient medical rationale of how appellant’s 

December 16, 2015 slip and fall at work caused, contributed to, or aggravated her lumbar, thoracic, 

or cervical conditions. Instead, he based his opinion on the fact that appellant experienced 

immediate pain and an increase in symptoms after the December 16, 2015 employment incident. 

The Board has held that an opinion that a condition is causally related because the employee was 

 

13 John W. Montoya, 54 ECAB 306 (2003).

14 See B.R., Docket No. 16-0456 (issued April 25, 2016).

15 S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009); T.M., Docket No. 08-0975 (issued February 6, 2009).
8

asymptomatic before the injury, without adequate rationale, is insufficient to establish causal 

relationship.16 Accordingly, Dr. Rook’s report is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

OWCP also received chiropractor reports from Dr. Barbuto. In reports dated March 28 to 

May 11, 2016, Dr. Barbuto provided examination findings and diagnosed cervical through gluteal 

myofascial strains with associated axial mechanical dysfunctions and sacroiliac dysfunction with 

associated pelvic unleveling/obliquity. Under FECA the term physician includes chiropractors 

only to the extent that their reimbursable services are limited to treatment consisting of manual 

manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation as demonstrated by x-ray to exist.17 OWCP’s 

regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(bb) have defined subluxation as an incomplete dislocation, offcentering, misalignment, fixation or abnormal spacing of the vertebrae which must be 

demonstrable on any x-ray film to an individual trained in the reading of x-rays.18 If the diagnosis 

of a subluxation as demonstrated by x-ray is not established, the chiropractor is not a physician as 

defined under FECA and his or her report is of no probative value to the medical issue presented.19 

The Board finds that the evidence of record does not include an x-ray establishing the diagnosis 

of subluxation. Accordingly, Dr. Barbuto is not considered a physician under FECA and his 

reports, therefore, are of no probative value to establish appellant’s claim. 

The March 18, 2016 lumbar spine MRI scan report also failed to establish appellant’s claim 

as diagnostic reports do not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition and 

thus lack probative value on the issue of causal relationship.20 

In order to obtain benefits under FECA an employee 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.21 Because appellant has not provided such evidence demonstrating that her cervical, 

thoracic, lumbar, and bilateral lower extremity conditions were causally related to the accepted 

December 16, 2015 employment incident, she has not met her burden of proof to establish her 

traumatic injury claim.

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.

 

16 R.V., Docket No. 18-1037 (issued March 26, 2019); M.R., Docket No. 14-0001 (issued August 27, 2014).

17 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). 

18 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(bb); see also Bruce Chameroy, 42 ECAB 121 (1990).

19 See R.P., Docket No. 18-0860 (issued December 4, 2018); Mary A. Ceglia, 55 ECAB 626 (2004); Jack B. Wood, 

40 ECAB 95, 109 (1988).

20 See K.S., Docket No. 18-1781 (issued April 8, 2019); G.S., Docket No. 18-1696 (issued March 26, 2019).

21 Supra note 4.
9

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

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

to review an award for or against compensation.22 The Secretary of Labor may review an award 

for or against payment of compensation at any time on his own motion or on application.23 

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.24 

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.25 If OWCP chooses to grant reconsideration, it 

reopens and reviews the case on its merits.26 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.27

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).

In support of her July 31, 2018 reconsideration request, appellant submitted a statement 

alleging that Dr. Rook adequately explained the causal relationship between her diagnosed 

conditions and the December 16, 2015 employment injury. The Board finds, however, that OWCP 

reviewed Dr. Rook’s March 27, 2017 report in its June 22, 2018 decision and properly determined 

that it was insufficient to establish causal relationship. Appellant’s argument, therefore, in her 

reconsideration request is insufficient to warrant reopening of her claim for further merit review. 

The Board, therefore, finds that in her July 31, 2018 reconsideration request, appellant did 

not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law, or advance a 

relevant legal argument not previously considered. Thus, appellant 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).

 

22 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

23 Id.

24 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see also L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 (issued March 3, 2010); C.N., Docket No. 08-1569 

(issued December 9, 2008).

25 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).

26 Id. at § 10.608(a); see also M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

27 Id. at § 10.608(b); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued March 18, 2010).
10

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

not previously considered.

Appellant submitted Dr. Rook’s March 27, 2017 report and Dr. Tyler’s reports dated 

March 17, 2016 to November 8, 2017, which were previously considered by OWCP. The Board 

has held that the submission of evidence which repeats or duplicates evidence already in the case 

record does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.28 Thus, appellant is not entitled to a review 

of the merits of her claim based on the third above-noted requirement under 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3). 

Accordingly, appellant has not met 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.29

CONCLUSION

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

diagnosed cervical, lumbar, thoracic, and bilateral lower extremity conditions were causally 

related to the accepted December 16, 2015 employment incident. The Board also finds that OWCP 

properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. § 8128(a).

 

28 E.M., Docket No. 09-0039 (issued March 3, 2009); D.K., 59 ECAB 141 (2007).

29 See D.R., Docket No. 18-0357 (issued July 2, 2018); A.K., Docket No. 09-2032 (issued August 3, 2010); M.E., 

58 ECAB 694 (2007); Susan A. Filkins, 57 ECAB 630 (2006).
11

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 23 and June 22, 2018 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: July 18, 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