United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.W., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BULK MAIL 

CENTER, Atlanta, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0952 

Issued: September 1, 2017 

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 March 29, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 23, 2017 nonmerit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The most recent merit 

decision was a November 16, 2016 decision of the Board which became final after 30 days of 

issuance.1

 OWCP has not issued a merit decision since the Board’s November 16, 2016 merit 

decision. As the March 29, 2017 OWCP decision is the only decision issued within 180 days of 

this appeal, pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board lacks jurisdiction over the merits of this claim. 

ISSUE 

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

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

 1

 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d). 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case was previously before the Board.3 The facts of the case as presented in the 

prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are set forth below. 

On January 11, 2016 appellant, then a 71-year-old retired distribution clerk, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on June 23, 1996 she was injured when her 

supervisor asked her to lift a 70-pound sack of mail, which she alleged was outside of her work 

restrictions. A supervisor noted on the claim form that appellant had retired 15 years ago and 

that the alleged injury occurred 20 years ago. 

By decision dated February 24, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that the 

claim was untimely filed, as the alleged date of injury was June 23, 1996, but the claim was not 

filed until January 20, 2016, which was beyond the three-year time limit. OWCP also found that 

appellant had not submitted evidence that her supervisor had actual knowledge within 30 days of 

the alleged injury. 

On March 11, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s February 24, 2016 

decision. By decision dated March 23, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration. 

On May 6, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal to the Board from the February 24, 2016 

merit decision and the March 23, 2016 nonmerit decision of OWCP. By decision dated 

November 16, 2016, the Board found that appellant had not submitted sufficient evidence to 

establish that her claim was timely filed.4

 The Board noted that the only evidence provided in 

support of finding that appellant had provided notice of injury to a supervisor within 30 days was 

a partly illegible and incomplete memorandum dated March 19, 1997 discussing a separate claim 

and noting that appellant had previously claimed a recurrence of temporary total disability on or 

after June 22, 1996. The Board found that whether appellant’s claim for recurrence was 

mistaken or not, the memorandum did not constitute probative evidence that appellant had 

notified her immediate superior of a new employment injury on June 22 or 23, 1996, such that 

her immediate supervisor would have had actual knowledge of the new injury within 30 days. 

Furthermore, the Board found there was no evidence that written notice of injury was given 

within 30 days. The Board also found that OWCP properly denied appellant’s March 11, 2016 

request for reconsideration as the legal argument she had submitted was repetitious and the 

evidence was irrelevant to the timelines issue. 

On February 17, 2017 OWCP received appellant’s February 14, 2017 request for 

reconsideration. With her request, appellant submitted a letter dated February 10, 2017 in which 

she alleged that she had notified her supervisor of the claimed incident of “June 22, 1996.” She 

stated that her supervisor had filled out the wrong form intentionally. Appellant alleged that, in a 

telephonic conversation with an OWCP representative, the representative had told her that her 

 3

 Docket No. 16-1131 (issued November 16, 2016). 

4 Id. 
3

claim file had been deleted, and alleged that OWCP engaged in fraudulent conduct.5 She further 

noted that her treating physician had found that she reached maximum medical improvement on 

October 16, 2006, and diagnosed her with additional psychiatric illnesses related to the original 

injury.6

By decision dated February 23, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration. It found that appellant had not submitted any evidence or legal arguments not 

previously considered, or any new and relevant pertinent evidence in support of her request for 

reconsideration. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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.7 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.8

ANALYSIS 

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). 

The underlying issue is whether appellant has submitted sufficient evidence to establish 

that she filed her June 23, 1996 claim in a timely manner, or that she provided a written notice of 

a new injury to her supervisor within 30 days, or that her supervisor had actual knowledge of the 

new injury. 

With her February 17, 2017 request for reconsideration, appellant submitted a narrative 

statement containing a series of allegations. She stated that her supervisor had filled out the 

wrong form intentionally. However, this statement is irrelevant as it does not address whether 

her supervisor had actual knowledge of an employment-related injury within 30 days of its 

occurrence.9

 Appellant alleged that, in a telephonic conversation with OWCP, she had been told 

 5

 There is no record of a telephonic conversation with an OWCP hearing representative in which the 

representative told appellant that her claim file had been deleted. The Board notes that the claim file for OWCP File 

No. xxxxxx822 has not been deleted. 

6

 This alleged report was not submitted to the case record. 

7

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

8

 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(b); see K.H., 59 ECAB 495, 499 (2008). 

9

 The Board has held that the submission of evidence or argument which does not address the particular issue 

involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case. M.N., Docket No. 16-1410 (issued June 28, 2017); 

Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224, 225 (1979). 
4

that her claim file had been deleted. She alleged that the OWCP claims examiner engaged in 

fraudulent conduct. The Board notes that there is no record of a telephonic conversation with 

OWCP in which appellant was told that her claim file had been deleted. The Board further notes 

that OWCP’s File No. xxxxxx822 has not been deleted, as this is the file on appeal. Appellant 

further noted that her treating physician had found that she reached maximum medical 

improvement on October 16, 2006, and diagnosed her with additional psychiatric illnesses 

related to the original injury. However, this report was not submitted to the case record. 

Appellant’s allegations in her reconsideration request neither showed that OWCP erroneously 

applied or interpreted a specific point of law, nor advanced a relevant legal argument not 

previously considered by OWCP. Her allegations did not address the underlying issue in this 

case,10 and therefore she has not met her burden under the first or second requirements of 

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

A claimant may also be entitled to a merit review by submitting pertinent new and 

relevant evidence, but appellant did not submit any pertinent new and relevant evidence in this 

claim. 

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 constitute 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 OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

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

 10 See G.G., Docket No. 16-0907 (issued March 20, 2017). 
5

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated November 16, 2016 is affirmed. 

Issued: September 1, 2017 

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