United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

V.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Trujillo Alto, PR, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0569

Issued: December 7, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 16, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 23, 2019 nonmerit 

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

have elapsed from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated November 26, 2018, to the filing of this 

appeal, pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) 

and 501.3, the Board lacks jurisdiction over the merits of this case.2

ISSUE

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

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

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 Appellant additionally listed OWCP File No. xxxxxx632 on his application for review (AB-1) form; however, the 

Board notes that there are no decisions in that case within the Board’s jurisdiction, as the last decision was issued on 

April 9, 2013. 20 C.F.R. § 501.3. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 10, 2018 appellant, then a 46-year-old city carrier, filed a notice of 

recurrence of disability (Form CA-2a) claiming that on September 5, 2018 he sustained a 

recurrence of his September 14, 2004 injury when he was carrying a tray filled with magazines 

from his employing establishment vehicle to the employing establishment while in the 

performance of duty. He indicated that he stopped work that day and sought medical treatment on 

September 6, 2018.3

In an October 23, 2018 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that it was in receipt 

of his claim for a September 5, 2018 employment injury. Because it appeared that he was 

performing a work function when the alleged incident occurred, it was converting his recurrence 

claim to a new traumatic injury claim, assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx327. OWCP indicated 

that additional evidence was required in support of appellant’s claim. It advised him of the type

of medical evidence necessary and afforded him 30 days to submit the requested evidence. 

By decision dated November 26, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

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

related to the accepted September 5, 2018 employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the 

requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

Appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) on August 7, 2019 for leave without 

pay for the period September 5, 2018 to August 2, 2019.

On August 7, 2019 OWCP also received a work capacity evaluation form (Form OWCP5c) and an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) that were both completely illegible. 

On November 21, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration. 

In a November 15, 2019 narrative statement, appellant alleged that on September 5, 2018 

he suffered a traumatic injury when he carried a tray of magazines from his employing 

establishment vehicle to the employing establishment station platform. He related that on that day 

he went to the emergency room to evaluate his injury and then went to his primary care physician 

the next day who has continued to treat him. Appellant noted that he was enclosing the most recent

medical documentation from his primary care physician; however, no medical evidence was 

enclosed.

By decision dated December 23, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration.

 

3 The notice of recurrence was originally filed under OWCP File No. xxxxx632, which was a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) accepted on June 3, 2005 for displacement of the lumbar intervertebral disc without myopathy sustained 

on September 14, 2004. 
3

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 own motion or on application.4

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.5

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.6 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.7

ANALYSIS

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). 

Appellant filed a timely request for reconsideration on November 21, 2019. He did not 

demonstrate 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. Consequently, 

the Board finds that appellant was not entitled to a review of the merits based on the first or second 

above-noted requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).8

Appellant also failed to submit relevant and pertinent new evidence in support of his 

November 21, 2019 request for reconsideration. The Board has held that the submission of 

evidence or argument which does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a 

 

4 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); T.T., Docket No. 19-0319 (issued October 26, 2020); 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).

5 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see B.R., Docket No. 19-0372 (issued February 20, 2020); see also L.G., Docket No. 

09-1517 (issued March 3, 2010); C.N., Docket No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008).

6

Id. at § 10.607(a). The one-year period begins on the next day after the date of the original contested decision. 

For merit decisions issued on or after August 29, 2011, a request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP 

within one year of OWCP’s 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.

7

Id. at § 10.608(b); see M.E., Docket No. 20-0067 (issued October 15, 2020); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued 

March 18, 2010).

8 D.B., Docket No. 19-1963 (issued July 1, 2020); M.O., Docket No. 19-1677 (issued February 25, 2020); C.B., 

Docket No. 18-1108 (issued January 22, 2019).
4

basis for reopening a case.9 The underlying issue in this case is whether appellant submitted 

sufficient medical evidence to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the 

accepted September 5, 2018 employment incident. OWCP received a claim for compensation 

(Form CA-7), but this document did not address the underlying issue. Appellant submitted a work 

capacity evaluation form (Form OWCP-5) and an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) both 

of which were completely illegible. The Board has previously explained that an illegible document 

does not constitute probative medical evidence as it does not establish that the author is a 

physician.10 Appellant also submitted a November 15, 2019 narrative statement describing the 

accepted September 5, 2018 employment incident and indicating that he sought medical treatment. 

As the underlying issue on reconsideration is medical in nature, his personal narrative statement

does not establish entitlement to a review of the merits of his claim based on the third above-noted 

requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).11

The Board accordingly finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant was not 

entitled to further review of the merits of his claim pursuant to any of the three requirements under 

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.12

CONCLUSION

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). 

 

9 S.H., Docket No. 19-1897 (issued April 21, 2020); M.K., Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April 10, 2019); Edward 

Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224-25 (1979).

10 S.F., Docket No. 19-1735 (issued March 12, 2020); see C.S., Docket No. 18-1633 (issued December 30, 2019);

see also K.C., Docket No. 18-1330 (issued March 11, 2019).

11 See G.J. Docket No. 20-0071 (issued July 1, 2020). 

12 C.C., Docket No. 18-0316 (issued March 14, 2019); M.E., 58 ECAB 694 (2007); Susan A. Filkins, 57 ECAB 630 

(2006) (when an application for reconsideration does not meet at least one of the three requirements enumerated under 

section 10.606(b), OWCP will deny the application for reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on the 

merits).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 23, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 7, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board