United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, LA GRANGE POST 

OFFICE, La Grange, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0037

Issued: June 23, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 26, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 14, 2019 nonmerit 

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

elapsed since OWCP’s last merit decision, dated June 5, 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 to review the merits of this case.

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).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 7, 2018 appellant, a then 55-year-old carrier, filed an occupational disease claim 

(Form CA-2) alleging that she had developed carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) due to factors of her 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

federal employment. She noted that she had numbness and tingling in her hands, especially in her 

fingertips. Appellant indicated that she first became aware of her claimed condition on May 1, 

2017 and first realized its relation to her federal employment on February 19, 2018. She did not 

stop work. 

On a form dated February 19, 2018, Dr. Amar A. Patel, a Board-certified orthopedic hand 

surgeon, diagnosed bilateral CTS. 

In an undated narrative statement, appellant indicated that she had been employed at the 

employing establishment since December 1993 and her duties required using a letter sorting 

machine until she became qualified for casing mail at work.

In a February 19, 2018 activity status report, Dr. Patel advised that appellant was capable 

of returning to work that same day with no restrictions. 

A narrative statement from appellant, dated March 2, 2018, indicated that for some time 

she had had problems with her hands, the right worse than the left, and reiterated that she had been 

diagnosed with CTS. She further indicated that she had different kinds of splints and they were 

not working as well as they used to and requested an electromyogram (EMG). 

In an April 23, 2018 developmental letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to establish her 

claim and attached a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

submit the requested factual and medical evidence. No additional evidence was received.

By decision dated June 5, 2018, OWCP denied the claim finding that the factual evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish that the claimed injury and/or event(s) had occurred as 

alleged. It found that appellant’s brief statement on her CA-2 form failed to describe how often 

she had performed the implicated work activities and for how long on each occasion. Thus, OWCP 

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

Appellant subsequently submitted additional medical evidence in support of her claim, 

including a progress report from Dr. Patel dated February 19, 2018 and an EMG report dated 

May 23, 2018.

In a June 6, 2018 report, Dr. Patel continued to diagnose bilateral CTS and opined that

appellant’s symptoms were a result of repetitive activity that she performed on a daily basis while 

at work. He noted that although CTS was multifactorial, repetitive activity could definitely lead 

to worsening of symptoms. 

On August 6, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration. A memorandum of telephone call 

(Form CA-110) reveals that on December 11, 2018 appellant called OWCP to inquire about the 

status of her petition for reconsideration. 

By decision dated February 14, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration of the merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a), finding that she neither 

raised substantive legal questions nor submitted new and relevant evidence and, thus, the submitted 

evidence was insufficient to warrant a review of its prior June 5, 2018 merit decision.
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Section 8128(a) of FECA does not entitle a claimant to review of an OWCP decision as a 

matter of right.2 OWCP has discretionary authority in this regard and has imposed certain 

limitations in exercising its authority.3 One such limitation is that the request for reconsideration 

must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of the decision for which review is sought.4 

A timely application for reconsideration, including all supporting documents, must set forth 

arguments and contain evidence that either: (i) shows that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law; (ii) advances a relevant legal argument not previously 

considered by OWCP; or (iii) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously 

considered by OWCP.5 When a timely application for reconsideration does not meet at least one 

of the above-noted requirements, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for a review on the merits.6

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

On August 6, 2018 appellant filed a request for reconsideration of OWCP’s June 5, 2018 

merit decision. However, it was not until February 14, 2019, 192 days after she filed her request 

for reconsideration, that OWCP issued a decision finding that the evidence submitted in support 

of her August 6, 2018 request for reconsideration was insufficient to warrant a merit review.

OWCP’s procedures provide a timeliness goal for issuing reconsideration decisions within 

90 days from the receipt of the request.7 As OWCP’s February 14, 2019 nonmerit decision was 

issued more than 90 days after it received appellant’s request for reconsideration on August 6, 

2018, the question becomes whether the delay has impacted appellant’s ability to file a timely 

request for reconsideration of the merits of her case under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).8 Had OWCP issued 

 

2 This section provides in pertinent part: “[t]he Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against payment of 

compensation at any time on [his] own motion or on application.” 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

3 20 C.F.R. § 10.607.

4

Id. at § 10.607(a). 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.

5

Id. at § 10.606(b)(3).

6

Id. at § 10.608(a), (b).

7 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, supra note 4 at Chapter 2.1602.2(c) (October 2011).

8 See G.D., Docket No. 19-0815 (issued January 16, 2020); E.I., Docket No. 18-0634 (issued January 23, 2019) 

(the Board ordered a merit review where OWCP delayed its reconsideration decision more than 90 days from the 

receipt of the request).
4

the reconsideration decision within its 90-day timeliness goal, appellant would have had additional 

time to appeal the June 5, 2018 merit decision to the Board and/or request reconsideration of the 

merits of the claim under the criteria set forth for a timely request for reconsideration with OWCP. 

Therefore, the Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.9 To preserve 

appellant’s right to file a timely appeal to the Board or request reconsideration with OWCP, the 

case will be remanded to OWCP for a merit review of the evidence of record followed by an 

appropriate decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 14, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and this case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: June 23, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

9 See G.D., id.