United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

PHILADELPHIA VA MEDICAL CENTER, 

Philadelphia, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0986

Issued: January 20, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Aaron B. Aumiller, Esq., for the appellant1

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 June 15, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a December 17, 

2020 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). As more 

than 180 days elapsed from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated December 5, 2019, to the filing 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 case. 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
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

On April 4, 2019 appellant, then a 59-year-old advanced medical services assistant, filed 

an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed carpal tunnel syndrome 

due to factors of her federal employment, including prolonged typing. She noted that she first 

became aware of her condition and its relation to her federal employment on November 12, 2018. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a medical report dated November 12, 2018 

from Dr. Bezarel M. Banadda, a Board-certified internist, who diagnosed pain in the left and right 

hands. OWCP also received a partially illegible note from a medical facility, dated December 13, 

2018, which noted that the patient had bilateral severe carpal tunnel syndrome. 

In a development letter dated May 30, 2019, OWCP informed appellant that additional 

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

factual and medical evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for her completion. By separate 

development letter of even date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide 

comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding appellant’s allegations. It afforded both 

parties 30 days to respond.

By decision dated July 24, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the evidence

of record was insufficient to establish factors of her federal employment. It concluded, therefore, 

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

On July 29, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, which was held on October 23, 2019. 

During the telephonic hearing, she alleged that she held three different clerk/typist jobs during the 

37 years of her federal employment, all of which required her to type and use a computer and 

mouse. The hearing representative afforded appellant 30 days to submit additional evidence. 

In a medical report dated November 11, 2019, Dr. Meredith N. Osterman, a Board-certified 

hand and orthopedic surgeon, reviewed appellant’s electromyography (EMG) test and diagnosed 

severe bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. 

OWCP also received reports dated November 13 and December 13, 2018 from

Dr. Osterman in which she related that appellant experienced numbness, tingling, and burning at 

the tip of her fingers for the past 11 months. Dr. Osterman diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel 

syndrome. 

By decision dated December 5, 2019, a hearing representative modified OWCP’s July 24, 

2019 decision to find that appellant had established the alleged factors of her federal employment, 

but denied the claim as causal relationship had not been established. 
3

On July 20, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of OWCP’s 

December 5, 2019 decision. Counsel noted that he was enclosing a copy of a June 30, 2020 

narrative report from Dr. Osterman. However, no additional medical evidence was received. 

By decision dated December 17, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration of the merits of her claim. 

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.3

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.4

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.5If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

and reviews the case on its merits.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 her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

3

Id. at § 8128(a); see L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February11, 2019); 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).

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see L.D., id.; see also L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 (issued March 3, 2010); C.N., Docket 

No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008).

5

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.

6

Id. at § 10.608(a); see also A.F., Docket No. 19-1832 (issued July 21, 2020); M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

7

Id. at § 10.608(b); J.B., Docket No. 20-0145 (issued September 8, 2020); Y.K., Docket No. 18-1167 (issued 

April 2, 2020); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued March 18, 2010).
4

Appellant has not alleged or demonstrated that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted 

a specific point of law. Moreover, appellant has not advanced a relevant legal argument not 

previously considered. Consequently, she is not entitled to a review of the merits of her claim 

based on the first and second above-noted requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).8

The Board further finds that appellant has not provided any relevant and pertinent new 

evidence not previously considered. Although appellant’s counsel stated that a narrative report 

from Dr. Osterman was enclosed with the reconsideration request, OWCP did not receive any

additional evidence. As appellant did not provide relevant and pertinent new evidence, she is not 

entitled to a merit review based on the third requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).9

The Board, accordingly, finds that appellant did not meet 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.10

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).

8 C.B., Docket No. 18-1108 (issued January 22, 2019).

9

See T.W., Docket No. 18-0821 (issued January 13, 2020).

10 J.B., supra note 7; D.G., Docket No. 19-1348 (issued December 2, 2019).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 17, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 20, 2022

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