United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.Y., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Dallas, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1049

Issued: February 1, 2022

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 June 7, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 4, 2021 nonmerit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 As more than 180 days has elapsed 

from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated June 9, 2020, to the filing of this appeal, pursuant to the 

1 The Board notes that, during the pendency of this appeal, OWCP issued a June23, 2021 decision, which again 

denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). The Board 

and OWCP may not simultaneously exercise jurisdiction over the same issue(s). 20 C.F.R. § § 501.2(c)(3), 10.626; 

see C.G., Docket No. 20-0784 (issued May11, 2021);see J.W., Docket No. 19-1688, n.1 (issued March 18, 2020); 

J.A., Docket No. 19-0981, n.2 (issued December 30, 2019); ArloniaB. Taylor, 44 ECAB 591 (1993) (Alternate 

Member, Groom concurring in part and dissenting in part); Douglas E. Billings, 41 ECAB 880 (1990). Consequently, 

OWCP’s March 16, 2020 decision is set aside as null and void.
2

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.3

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.4 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

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

follows.

On April 27, 1988 appellant, then a 27-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that she was robbed and raped by an unknown assailant while in the 

performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and 

depression. 

On April 16, 2002 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a schedule 

award. 

In a May 30, 2002 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule award, finding 

that she had not submitted evidence establishing permanent impairment of a scheduled member or 

function of the body. It also explained that there was no provision under FECA for payment of a 

schedule award due to permanent impairment from a psychological condition. On July 22, 2002 

appellant filed an appeal from the May 30, 2002 decision. In a December 17, 2002 decision, the 

Board affirmed OWCP’s May 30, 2002 decision.5 The Board found that under FECA and its 

implementing regulations there was no provision entitling a claimant to a schedule award for an 

accepted psychiatric condition. 

On October 15, 2007 appellant filed another Form CA-7 claim for a schedule award. In a 

letter dated November 9, 2007, OWCP again advised appellant that, because her claim was only 

accepted for an emotional condition, she was not entitled to a schedule award.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 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.

4 Docket No. 14-1175 (issued October 27, 2014); Docket No. 13-1316 (issued December 12, 2013); Docket No. 

11-2102 (issued April6, 2012), petition for recon. denied, Docket No. 11-2102 (issued July 21, 2012); Docket No. 

05-1805 (issued October 2, 2006); Docket No. 02-1971 (issued December 17, 2002).

5 Docket No. 02-1971 (issued December 17, 2002). 
3

On January 8 and 15, 2019 appellant again filed Form CA-7 claims for a schedule award. 

In a letter dated January 17, 2019, OWCP informed appellant that, in order to receive a 

schedule award, the medical evidence must support a finding that the accepted injury resulted in a 

permanent impairment involving total or partial loss of use of a member or function of the body 

listed in 5 U.S.C. § 8107 or 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. Itinformed appellant that no action could be taken 

on her claim for a schedule award. 

On March 9, 2019 appellant filed another Form CA-7 schedule award claim. 

In support of her claim, appellantresubmitted an April 2, 2003 report from Dr. A.J. Morris, 

a family physician, who referred to the fifth edition of the American Medical Association, Guides 

to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment,(A.M.A., Guides)

6

, and opined that appellant had five

percent permanent impairment due to her accepted PTSD condition.

By decision dated January 23, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim. It

again found that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish permanent impairment of a 

scheduled member or function of the body pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

On February 28, April 3, and May 13, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration. By 

decisions dated March 25, April 13, and June 9, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its prior 

decisions.

On May 13, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration. By decision dated June 9, 2020, 

OWCP denied modification. It again found that the medical evidence of record did not support a 

permanent impairment of a scheduled member or function of the body pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

On November 23, 2020 appellant again requested reconsideration. By decision dated 

November 30, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her 

claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

On April 21, 2021 appellant again requested reconsideration. 

By decision dated May 4, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of her claim under 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 own motion or on application. 7

6 A.M.A., Guides(5th ed. 2001).

7

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a);see A.A., Docket No. 20-1564 (issued August30, 2021); J.C., Docket No. 20-0614 (issued 

February10, 2021); 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

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.8

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.9 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, OWCP

reopens and reviews the case on its merits.10 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.11

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 in this case is whether appellant has established entitlement to a 

schedule award for her accepted conditions of PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Appellant’s June 7, 

2021 timely request for reconsideration neither alleged nor demonstrated that OWCP erroneously 

applied or interpreted a specific point of law. Additionally, the Board finds that she did not 

advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. Appellant is not entitled 

to further review of the merits of her claim based on either the first or second above -noted

requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).12

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

evidence in support of her request for reconsideration. As appellant failed to provide relevant and 

8

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see D.G., Docket No. 20-1203 (issued April28, 2021); see also L.G., Docket No. 

09-1517 (issued March 3, 2010); C.N., Docket No. 08-1569(issued December 9, 2008).

9

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 the merit 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.

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(a); D.J., Docket No. 21-0371 (issued November 24, 2021); see also M.S., 59 ECAB 

231 (2007).

11 Id. at § 10.608(b); D.J., id.; E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued March 18, 2010).

12 P.S., Docket No. 20-1090 (issued September 9, 2021); A.G., Docket No. 20-0290 (issued June 24, 2020); C.B., 

Docket No. 18-1108 (issued January 22, 2019).
5

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).13

The Board accordingly finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements under 

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.

14

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 May 4, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: February 1, 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

13 P.S., id.; see also G.J., Docket No. 20-0071 (issued July 1, 2020); V.Q., Docket No. 19-1309 (issued January 3, 

2020); EugeneF. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984).

14 M.O., 21-0459 (issued December 29, 2021); D.G., Docket No. 19-1348 (issued December 2, 2019).