United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Charlotte, NC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1787

Issued: April 7, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 27, 2019 appellant timely filed for review of a February 28, 2019 merit decision 

and an April 9, 2019 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

(OWCP).1 Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction to consider the merits of this case.

 

1 Appellant submitted a timely request for oral argument before the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). Pursuant to the 

Board’s Rules of Procedure, oral argument may be held in the discretion of the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(a). In 

support of appellant’s oral argument request, he asserted that oral argument should be granted to provide him with an 

opportunity to submit medical evidence sufficient to establish a medical condition causally related to factors of his 

federal employment. The Board, in exercising its discretion, denies appellant’s request for oral argument because this 

matter requires an evaluation of the medical evidence presented and 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). As such, the arguments on appeal can adequately 

be addressed in a decision based on a review of the case record. Oral argument in this appeal would further delay 

issuance of a Board decision and not serve a useful purpose. As such, the oral argument request is denied and this 

decision is based on the case record as submitted to the Board.

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a medical 

condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment; and (2) whether 

OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of his claim pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 26, 2018 appellant, then a 53-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed sharp pain and weakness in his lower back 

that shot down to his left leg and caused numbness and tingling in his left leg and foot due to 

repetitive factors of his federal employment, including bending to retrieve sprigs, letters, flats, and 

parcels, lifting heavy trays and tubs of mail, twisting and turning while delivering mail, carrying 

parcels, and climbing up stairs. He noted that he first realized that his condition was caused or 

aggravated by his federal employment on May 10, 2018. Appellant did not stop work. 

In a January 17, 2019 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical 

evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for his completion. In a separate development letter 

of even date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide a copy of appellant’s 

position description and physical requirements of his job. It afforded both parties 30 days to 

respond. No additional evidence was received from either party.

By decision dated February 28, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis 

causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment. It concluded, therefore, that he 

had not met the requirements to establish an injury as defined under FECA. 

On March 26, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration via an appeal request form. In an 

accompanying statement, he contended that he sustained an injury causally related to factors of his 

federal employment. No additional evidence was received. 

By decision dated April 9, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

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

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including the fact that the individual is an employee of the 

United States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period of FECA,4that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, 

 

3

Id.

4 S.S., Docket No. 19-1815 (issued June 26, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).
3

and that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related 

to the employment injury.5 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim, 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.6

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (1) a factual statement identifying 

employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the 

disease or condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or 

condition for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the 

diagnosed condition is causally related to the identified employment factors.7

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.8 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual 

and medical background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must 

be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed 

condition and the specific employment factors identified by the claimant.9

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a medical

condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment. 

To establish that he sustained an occupational disease in the performance of duty, appellant 

must submit medical evidence that establishes the presence or existence of the disease or condition 

for which compensation is claimed and that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the 

identified employment factors.10 As appellant has not submitted any medical evidence, he has not 

established a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted employment factors.11 The Board 

thus finds that he has not met his burden of proof to establish his claim.

 

5 M.H., Docket No. 19-0930 (issued June 17, 2020); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 

312 (1988).

6 S.A., Docket No. 19-1221 (issued June 9, 2020); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); Delores C. 

Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 R.G., Docket No. 19-0233 (issued July 16, 2019). See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Ruby I. 

Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).

8 L.F., Docket No. 19-1905 (issued April 10, 2020); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

9 A.S., Docket No. 19-1955 (issued April 9, 2020); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

10 Supra note 7.

11 C.L., Docket No. 20-0385 (issued August 5, 2020).
4

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

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.12

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.13

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.14 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

and reviews the case on its merits.15 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.16

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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).

In his timely request for reconsideration, appellant submitted an appeal request form and 

an accompanying statement contending that he sustained an injury while in the performance of 

duty. His contention, however, neither showed that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a 

specific point of law, nor did it advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by 

 

12 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see T.K., Docket No. 19-1700 (issued April 30, 2020); L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued 

February 11, 2019); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).

13 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see C.L., supra note 11; C.C., Docket No. 19-1622 (issued May 28, 2020); E.R., Docket 

No. 09-1655 (issued March 18, 2010); C.N., Docket No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008).

14 Id. at § 10.607(a); see K.T., Docket No. 18-0927 (issued May 13, 2020). Timeliness is determined by the 

document receipt date (i.e., “the received date” in OWCP’s Integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation System 

(iFECS)). If the request for reconsideration has a document received date greater than one year, the request must be 

considered untimely. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4(b) 

(February 2016).

15 Id. at § 10.608(a); see F.V., Docket No. 18-0230 (issued May 8, 2020); M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

16 Id. at § 10.608(b); see B.S., Docket No. 20-0761 (issued January 29, 2021); C.L., supra note 11; C.C., supra note 

13; E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued March 18, 2010).
5

OWCP. Thus, appellant is not entitled to a review of the merits of his claim based on the first and 

second above-noted requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).17

Additionally, appellant did not submit relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously 

considered by OWCP.18 Consequently, appellant is not entitled 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).

The Board, therefore, finds that, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied 

merit review.19

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a medical 

condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment. The Board further 

finds that OWCP properly denied his request for reconsideration of the merits of his claim pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

 

17 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see B.B., Docket No. 20-1129 (issued December 31, 2020); L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 

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

18 Supra note 13.

19 D.M., Docket No. 18-1003 (issued July 16, 2020); Susan A. Filkins, 57 ECAB 630 (2006) (when a request for 

reconsideration does not meet at least one of the three requirements enumerated under section 10.606(b), OWCP will 

deny the request without reopening the case for a review on the merits).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 9 and February 28, 2019 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: April 7, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, 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