United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

_________________________________________ 

G.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Jersey City, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0322 

Issued: July 12, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record 

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On December 8, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of an August 6, 2015 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from June 5, 2013, the date of the most recent OWCP merit decision, to the filing of the 

current appeal, pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of appellant’s claim.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly refused to reopen appellant’s case for further 

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

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted evidence with her appeal to the Board. The Board cannot consider 

this evidence as its review of the case is limited to the evidence of record which was before OWCP at the time of 

its final decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c); see Steven S. Saleh, 55 ECAB 169 (2003). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 11, 2015 appellant, appellant then a 41-year-old mail handler, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that her employment caused a cyst on her left 

wrist with tingling and numbness in the left hand. She indicated that she became aware of this 

disease or illness on December 4, 2014. Appellant did not stop work. 

In a February 11, 2015 statement, appellant noted that late in November 2014 she noticed 

that a cyst was appearing on the inside of her left wrist and it got bigger over the next few weeks. 

She explained that, as she used her hands, she felt a tingling sensation and numbness in her left 

hand and fingers. Appellant indicated that her physician drained the cyst. She related that it was 

gone for about a month and a half and reappeared. Appellant advised that her physician was 

concerned and recommended further treatment. 

Appellant described her employment activities which included pulling and lifting mail 

sacks up to 70 pounds from a slide and roller table which strained her wrists. She noted that it 

was mostly on the left side, placing more stress on her left hand and wrist. Furthermore, 

appellant loaded and unloaded mail trucks which required heavy and repetitive lifting of boxes 

and sacks. She indicated that she worked a minimum of 40 hours a week, 8 hours a day. 

Appellant advised that she previously had a ganglion cyst in 2007, while working as a mail 

carrier. She noted that she changed to a mail handler, to alleviate the stress on her wrists. 

Appellant indicated that it recurred in 2012, but she explained that the prior cysts did not cause 

numbness or tingling. She indicated that she was losing sensation and dropping things. 

In a letter dated February 18, 2015, the employing establishment controverted the claim 

explaining that appellant had not previously reported that she was experiencing discomfort in 

any way. 

In a February 10, 2015 report, Dr. Robert Lombardi, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted that appellant presented for reevaluation of a left wrist ganglion cyst. He 

explained that on December 4, 2014 appellant had received an aspiration of fluid and a cortisone 

injection to the left wrist for a ganglion cyst and a carpal tunnel brace for support. Dr. Lombardi 

advised that appellant indicated that her symptoms had not improved since her last visit and had 

returned since working with a repetitive motion. He also noted that appellant reported dropping 

objects due to her condition. Dr. Lombardi examined appellant’s left wrist and found a large, 

marble-sized cyst on the left wrist. He diagnosed ganglion cyst on the left and possible carpal 

tunnel, pending electromyography (EMG) scan results. Dr. Lombardi opined that, based upon 

the history of injury and his examination, the current orthopedic complaints were causally related 

to her work as she had to manipulate, hold, and grasp on an ongoing basis. He requested 

authorization for the EMG and carpal tunnel surgery. 

By letter dated April 20, 2015, OWCP advised appellant that additional factual and 

medical evidence was needed and allotted appellant 30 days within which to submit the 

requested information. It specifically noted that a physician’s opinion explaining how 

employment activities caused or aggravated her medical condition had not been provided. 
3

By decision dated June 5, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that the 

medical evidence of record did not demonstrate that the claimed medical condition was related to 

the established work-related events. 

On July 30, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration on an appeal request form dated 

July 16, 2015. 

In a decision dated August 6, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

finding that, as she neither raised substantive legal questions, nor submitted new and relevant 

evidence, her request was insufficient to warrant review of its prior decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128(a) of FECA,3

OWCP’s regulations provides that 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.4 To be entitled to a merit review of an OWCP decision 

denying or terminating a benefit, a claimant’s application for review must be received within 

one year of the date of that decision.5 When a claimant fails to meet one of the above 

standards, OWCP will deny the application for reconsideration without reopening the case 

for review on the merits.6

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, appellant has not shown that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law; nor has she advanced a relevant legal argument not previously 

considered by OWCP. She merely completed a request for reconsideration form, but she did not 

submit any evidence or argument with her request. 

Further, appellant’s reconsideration request failed to submit any relevant and pertinent 

new evidence. As such, the Board finds that OWCP did not abuse its discretion in refusing to 

reopen appellant’s claim for a review on the merits in its August 6, 2015 decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly refused to reopen appellant’s case for further 

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

                                                             3

 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

5 Id. at § 10.607(a). 

6 Id. at § 10.608(b). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 6, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 12, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board