United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.G., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE 

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY, 

SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0329

Issued: October 19, 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

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 26, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 7, 2019 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated October 3, 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.2

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure

provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the 

time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal.”

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on 

appeal. Id.
2

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

This case has previously been before the Board.3 The facts and circumstances of the case 

as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts 

are as follows.

On April 9, 2015 appellant, then a 53-year-old financial management technician, filed an

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging depression, anxiety, irritable bowel syndrome,

spastic ataxia, back pain, leg fatigue/weakness, and vertigo, which she attributed to her work

environment. She alleged that she first became aware of her claimed conditions on January 1, 

2013 and first realized their relation to her federal employment on February 15, 2014. Appellant 

stopped work on March 12, 2015, and returned to work at her previous employment on April 7,

2015 with no change in her duties/assignments.

In addition to the Form CA-2, OWCP received a description of the financial management 

technician position, as well as a December 4, 2011 notification of personnel action form (Standard 

Form 50-B) memorializing a within-grade increase, effective December 18, 2011.

In a June 25, 2015 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional 

factual and medical evidence in support of her claim. It explained the basic elements for 

entitlement to FECA benefits, and noted that she had not provided a description of the employment 

factors she believed caused her alleged emotional and physical conditions. Additionally, OWCP 

noted that appellant had not provided medical documentation from her physician to support the 

existence of her claimed emotional and/or physical conditions. It afforded her 30 days to submit 

the requested factual and medical evidence.

On August 18, 2015 OWCP received an undated 28-page statement in which appellant

provided an extensive discussion of the stressful incidents and conditions at work that she believed 

had caused her to sustain the medical conditions delineated on her Form CA-2. Appellant indicated 

that she sustained employment-related stress beginning on March 3, 2009 when she started 

working under a new immediate supervisor in the financial section work unit. She asserted that, 

since that time, her supervisor unfairly harassed her regarding various work matters, including 

criticizing the wording she used in work documents, without providing her adequate training or

guidance on how to carry out her work assignments. Appellant claimed that her supervisor

scrutinized her work more closely than that of other employees and that she issued her improper 

performance appraisal ratings beginning in 2009. She asserted that on March 4, 2009 another 

supervisor committed harassment by yelling at her in the presence of other employees. Appellant 

further asserted that in October 2011 management improperly failed to consider her for promotion. 

She described several instances in February and March 2012 when she believed that a coworker 

unfairly criticized her work product, including her choice of the wording of e-mail 

 

3 Docket No. 16-1690 (issued September 7, 2017).
3

communications. Appellant alleged that on October 12, 2012 her supervisor made untrue 

statements about her work performance in connection with a work appraisal rating and improperly 

denied her request on that date to leave the office and take sick leave.

Appellant further alleged that on November 28, 2012 her supervisor unfairly criticized the 

manner in which she prepared e-mail communications. She indicated that on October 31, 2013 

her supervisor gave her feedback regarding a performance appraisal rating which she felt was 

unwarranted. Appellant alleged that her supervisor told her that no one wanted to promote her. 

On November 13, 2013 she became emotional and left the office because her supervisor told her 

that a coworker was frustrated about continuing to receive documents faxed from her physician. 

Appellant claimed that on March 7, 2014 her supervisor unreasonably told her that she should not 

spend time on training despite the fact that she felt it was necessary for her job. She indicated that 

on March 8, 2014 her supervisor advised her that she could not take any leave until she built up 

leave again. Appellant claimed that she was the only person who was monitored by this supervisor 

for leave usage. She claimed that on July 2, 2014 her supervisor unfairly criticized her by advising 

her that a coworker had complained that she “didn’t know what [she] was doing” with respect to 

a work matter. Appellant further asserted that on September 4, 2014 another supervisor laughed 

at her when she mentioned taking sick leave in a manner which suggested she believed that she 

was “faking” her need to take sick leave. She alleged that on October 29, 2014 her supervisor

wrongly accused her of slamming a door on an earlier occasion. Appellant indicated that on 

April 10, 2015 her supervisor interrupted her while she was receiving guidance on a work task 

from a coworker.

Appellant also submitted numerous reports from health care providers. In a September 3, 

2014 report, Dr. Panduranga Kini, a Board-certified psychiatrist, provided an impression of 

“anxiety type of symptoms.” In an April 15, 2015 report, Byron Loy, a licensed clinical 

professional counselor, noted that appellant reported experiencing anxiety due to a supervisor who 

was a “bully and a micro manager.” On October 8, 2015 Dr. Steven D. Pritchett, Board-certified 

in family medicine, indicated that appellant reported experiencing stress from work and was being

treated by a psychiatrist for depression, anxiety, and panic disorder.

In a February 16, 2016 letter, OWCP again requested that appellant submit additional

factual and medical evidence in support of her claim. It acknowledged receipt of her August 18, 

2015 response, as well as medical documentation, however, it indicated that the submitted 

information was insufficient to support her claim. The enclosed questionnaire included a 

description of eight alleged employment incidents from November 2013 through October 2014. 

OWCP advised appellant to submit evidence to support her allegations, including witness 

statement from anyone who could verify her allegations. It also requested that she submit copies 

of grievances and/or equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints that were filed with respect 

to the alleged working conditions. OWCP again afforded appellant 30 days to submit the requested 

information.

Appellant subsequently submitted several witness statements from early-2016 in which 

coworkers discussed their observations about her interactions with supervisors and other 

employees. She also submitted documents concerning an EEO claim she filed with respect to

some of her claimed employment factors. The documents included a copy of an unsigned “EEO 
4

Settlement Agreement.” In an undated document received by OWCP on March 3, 2016, appellant 

discussed the medical treatment of her stress-related conditions. 

Appellant also submitted additional medical evidence, including an August 24, 2015 report 

from Dr. Jeffrey S. Chalfant, an osteopath Board-certified in psychiatry, who diagnosed major 

depressive disorder (single episode, moderate degree), and unspecified anxiety state. 

By decision dated March 22, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that she failed 

to establish a compensable employment factor. It determined that she had not submitted sufficient 

supporting evidence to establish her claims that management committed error or abuse with respect

to administrative matters or that supervisors or coworkers subjected her to harassment or

discrimination. OWCP discussed most of the alleged claimed employment factors commencing 

in November 2013, which appellant detailed in her 28-page statement, but did not discuss those

alleged to have occurred between March 2009 and October 2013.

On April 19, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration of the March 22, 2016 decision. In 

support thereof, she submitted a 25-page document in which she further discussed the various 

incidents and conditions at work which she believed caused the claimed stress-related conditions. 

In an April 29, 2016 statement, a coworker discussed appellant’s interactions with supervisors. 

Appellant also submitted additional medical evidence.

By decision dated July 18, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of

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

Appellant appealed to the Board and, by decision dated September 7, 2017,4it set aside 

OWCP’s March 22, 2016 decision. The Board found that OWCP failed to adequately address a 

substantial portion of appellant’s claimed employment factors, i.e., the numerous factors alleged 

between March 2009 and October 2013, and to make adequate findings of fact regarding those 

allegations. The Board remanded the case to OWCP for further development of the evidence 

regarding appellant’s stress-related occupational disease claim. 

On remand OWCP further evaluated the factual aspect of appellant’s occupational disease 

claim in its totality. In February 2018 it solicited and received additional comments and 

documentation from the employing establishment regarding appellant’s claimed employment 

factors.

By decision dated March 21, 2018, OWCP again denied appellant’s claim, finding that she 

had not established a compensable employment factor.

On April 25, 2018 appellant requested a review of the written record by a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. She subsequently submitted additional evidence in 

support of her claim, including witness statements of current and former coworkers/supervisors, 

and copies of performance appraisals. In a June 17, 2016 report, Carol A. Sterling, a licensed 

clinical professional counselor, indicated that appellant reported that she experienced a highly 

toxic workplace environment during the prior five years, including being subjected to multiple 

 

4

Id.
5

criticisms for mistakes, receiving inadequate training and support, and being reprimanded for 

asking for help. Appellant further reported that this situation resulted in her developing depression, 

anxiety, and multiple physical symptoms.

By decision dated October 3, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative denied modification 

of the March 21, 2018 decision.

On September19, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration of her claim. In an 

accompanying statement, she asserted that management intended to strip her of her self-worth and 

to degrade her by subjecting her to personal attacks. 

In support thereof, appellant submitted a January 30, 2019 report from Dr. Salma MannanHilaly, Board-certified in family medicine, who noted that, since 2009 though the date of her 

report, appellant had been diagnosed with major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, 

propriospinal myoclonus disorder, acid reflux, esophageal reflux, gastrointestinal bleeding, posttraumatic stress disorder, spastic ataxia, small bowel ulcers, nausea, panic disorder, fatigue, 

somatization disorder, and cervical myelopathy. Dr. Mannan-Hilaly opined that these conditions

had been “caused from emotional distress and harassment, due to [appellant’s] work environment”

from 2009 through 2015 and that her supervisor was the major cause for “her physical and mental 

health concerns.” In a September 6, 2019 report, she advised that appellant was diagnosed with 

anxiety disorder in 2006 and 2007 and was placed on medication due to distress. Dr. MannanHilaly indicated that appellant was gradually taken off medication during 2008 as she did not need 

it at that time. She noted that, from 2009 through 2015, appellant was again placed on medication 

for anxiety disorder and major depression due to her supervisor who “caused her sickness and 

depression due to the hostile work environment.” Dr. Mannan-Hilaly indicated that appellant 

started to show major symptoms of severe distress at that time.

In a June 20, 2019 letter, Dr. Scott Norris, a Board-certified neurologist, noted that he first 

treated appellant on May 18, 2016 for atypical myoclonus, abnormal movements, and atypical gait 

pattern, and that he last saw her on June 5, 2019. He diagnosed functional myoclonus, tremor, and 

gait (greatly exacerbated by stress), and noted she also had cervical myelopathy secondary to 

cervical stenosis. Dr. Norris advised that appellant had asked him to write a letter “in consideration 

that a self-related history of verbal abuse in the work setting (she specifically indicated that a 

former supervisor bullied and belittled her) greatly exacerbated her atypical movement disorder.” 

He reported that it was generally true that psychological stressors exacerbated symptoms of 

functional movement disorder and that appellant reported improved functional movement in 

connection with stress reduction since stopping work. 

In a March 1, 2019 report, Ms. Sterling indicated that she had ruled out previous diagnoses 

of anxiety disorder and acute distress disorder, and noted that she concurred with an attending 

physician’s diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. She advised that, while the traumatic 

workplace events did not involve a physical threat of death, appellant experienced a “highly 

charged psychological attack” which felt emotionally abusive to her. Ms. Sterling noted that 

appellant reported experiencing systemic exclusion and hostile communications from her 

supervisor, resulting in repeated exposure to demeaning interactions. She opined that the 

“psychological atmosphere in the workplace had a profoundly negative effect on appellant’s 

psychic safety and personal worth.”
6

Appellant also submitted a copy of the October 3, 2018 OWCP hearing representative’s 

decision.

By decision dated November 7, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

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

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 or her own motion or on application.5

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.6

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.7 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

and reviews the case on its merits.8 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.9

The Board has held that the submission of evidence or argument which repeats or duplicates 

evidence or argument already in the case record10 and the submission of evidence or argument which 

does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.11 

 

5 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019); 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).

6 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see M.S., Docket No. 18-1041 (issued October 25, 2018); L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 

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

7 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a). The one-year period begins on the next day after the date of the original contested decision. 

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.

8

Id. at § 10.608(a); see D.C., Docket No. 19-0873 (issued January 27, 2020); M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

9 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(b); see T.V., Docket No. 19-1504 (issued January 23, 2020); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued 

March 18, 2010).

10 N.L., Docket No. 18-1575 (issued April 3, 2019); Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984).

11 M.K., Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April 10, 2019); Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224, 225 (1979).
7

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).

On September 17, 2019 appellant filed a timely request for reconsideration of an October 3, 

2018 decision,

12 but she did not establish that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific 

point of law, nor did she advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. 

She argued that she established compensable employment factors because management intended 

to strip her of her self-worth and to degrade her by subjecting her to personal attacks. However, 

OWCP had previously considered and rejected these same arguments when it denied appellant’s 

stress-related occupational disease claim. Accordingly, the Board finds that appellant is not 

entitled to a review of the merits based on either the first or second requirement under 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3). 

On reconsideration, appellant submitted additional medical evidence, including January 30 

and September 6, 2019 reports from Dr. Mannan-Hilaly, and a June 20, 2019 letter from Dr. Norris. 

While this medical evidence is new, it is not relevant because it does not directly address the 

underlying issue of the present case which is factual in nature, i.e., whether appellant submitted

sufficient factual evidence, with adequate supporting documentation, to establish a compensable 

employment factor. The submission of this medical evidence does not warrant a review of 

appellant’s claim on the merits because 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.13 

Appellant submitted a March 1, 2019 report from Ms. Sterling, a licensed clinical 

professional counselor, who advised that appellant reported experiencing systemic exclusion and 

hostile communications from her supervisor. This nonmedical document is not relevant to abovenoted underlying issue of the present case because it only contains a second-hand description of 

appellant’s unsupported allegations regarding work conditions. Therefore, the submission of this 

document would not require reopening of appellant’s case for review on the merits.14 Moreover, 

its content is similar to that of previously submitted documents which have already been 

considered by OWCP, including a June 17, 2016 report from Ms. Sterling. Appellant also 

submitted a copy of the October 3, 2018 decision of OWCP’s hearing representative, but this 

document was already of record and would not require reopening of the claim for merit review. 

The Board has held that the submission of evidence or argument which repeats or duplicates 

evidence or argument already in the case record does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.15 

Therefore, appellant also failed to satisfy the third requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

 

12 See J.F., Docket No. 16-1233 (issued November 23, 2016).

13 See supra note 11.

14 Id. 

15 See supra note 10.
8

The Board accordingly finds that 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.

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).

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 7, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 19, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board