United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Edison, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0331

Issued: October 27, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas S. Harkins, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 18, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a June 18, 

2019 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The most 

recent merit decision was a Board decision dated June 14, 2018, which became final after 30 days 

of issuance, and is not subject to further review.2 As there was no merit decision issued within 

180 days from the filing of this appeal, pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3

 

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 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d); see M.S., Docket No. 18-0222 (issued June 21, 2018); J.P., Docket No. 17-0053 (issued 

May 23, 2017); R.M., Docket No. 14-1213 (issued October 15, 2014).

3 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

(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 his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case was previously before the Board.4 The facts and circumstances as set forth in 

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

On December 16, 2013 appellant, a 64-year-old mail processor, filed a notice of recurrence 

(Form CA-2a), under OWCP File No. xxxxxx217, alleging that he had sustained a recurrence of 

his October 30, 2008 accepted employment-related conditions of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome 

and right de Quervain’s tenosynovitis on November 23, 2013. He indicated that he returned to 

limited-duty work on November 4, 2013, but stopped work again on November 23, 2013 because 

the position required him to use his thumbs and hands in excess of four hours per day. 

A September 5, 2013 rehabilitation assignment offer for the position of customer care agent

indicated that the duties required “occasional simple grasping (mouse); occasional pushing/pulling 

using a computer mouse, interchangeable to right/left side as needed for comfort; and occasional 

fine manipulation or use of single finger when using a keyboard.” The employing establishment 

noted that the learning process encompassed three weeks of training with the first two weeks in a 

classroom setting and the third week with an instructor on “live” customer calls. 

On March 19, 2014 OWCP determined that appellant had sustained a new injury and 

converted his claim from a recurrence of disability to a claim for an occupational disease (Form 

CA-2). By decisions dated May 15 and August 15, 2014, it denied his occupational disease claim. 

On December 5, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed an appeal with the Board.

By decision dated April 3, 2015, the Board set aside OWCP’s August 15, 2014 decision 

denying appellant’s claim for a new injury and remanded the case for OWCP to combine the 

current case record, OWCP File No. xxxxxx656, with OWCP File No. xxxxxx217, and determine 

whether he sustained either a recurrence of disability due to his October 30, 2008 employment 

injury or a new employment injury.5 

By decision dated June 14, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence claim finding that 

the evidence of record did not establish a change in the nature and extent of the injury-related 

conditions or a change in the nature and extent of the limited-duty job requirements. 

 

4 Docket No. 17-0120 (issued June 14, 2018); Docket No. 15-0359 (issued April 3, 2015).

5 Docket No. 17-0129 (issued June 14, 2018); Docket No. 15-0359 (issued April 3, 2015).
3

On October 25, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed an appeal to the Board. 

By decision dated June 14, 2018, the Board affirmed OWCP’s June 14, 2016 decision 

denying appellant’s claim for a recurrence finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to 

establish that his light-duty job requirements had changed such that the job requirements were no 

longer within his medical restrictions and he was unable to perform his limited-duty position.

6

 

On June 4, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration arguing that OWCP 

had committed an error when the Board issued its June 14, 2018 decision because the evidence 

clearly established appellant’s claim.7 Counsel further submitted a narrative statement from 

appellant who indicated that the employing establishment was unprofessional and/or malicious 

when offering appellant a suitable job and continued to argue that he experienced permanent 

damage to his hands due to the repetitive nature of his limited-duty position. 

By decision dated June 18, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

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

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

matter of right.8 OWCP has discretionary authority in this regard and has imposed certain 

limitations in exercising its authority.9 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.10

A timely request 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 

 

6 Docket No. 17-0120 (issued June 14, 2018). In an Order Denying Petition for Reconsideration (issued March 4, 

2019), the Board denied appellant’s petition for reconsideration of its June 14, 2018 decision finding that it failed to 

establish an error of fact or law warranting further consideration. 

7 OWCP has no jurisdiction to review a Board decision. The decisions and orders of the Board are final as to the 

subject matter appealed and such decisions and orders are not subject to review, except by the Board. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.6(d). Appellant had 30 days from the date of the Board’s June 14, 2018 decision to file a petition for 

reconsideration with this Board of its decision. Id. at § 501.7. See also C.M., Docket No. 19-1211 (issued August 5 

2020); B.B., Docket No. 14-0464 (issued June 4, 2014).

8 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).

9 20 C.F.R. § 10.607.

10 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.
4

considered by OWCP.11 When a timely request 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.12

ANALYSIS

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 application for reconsideration, appellant did not establish that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law, nor did he advance a relevant legal 

argument not previously considered by OWCP.13 Although he submitted a new narrative 

statement and a statement from his representative, they merely reiterated contentions previously 

reviewed by OWCP. Consequently, 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).14 

Moreover, appellant’s request for reconsideration did not include relevant and pertinent 

new evidence in support of his June 4, 2019 request for reconsideration. The underlying issue is 

whether he submitted sufficient evidence to establish that his assigned duties exceeded his physical 

limitations or caused or aggravated his accepted conditions. However, appellant did not submit 

any additional evidence with his request for reconsideration. Because he did not provide any 

relevant and pertinent new evidence, he is not entitled to a review of the merits based on the third 

requirement under section 10.606(b)(3).15

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 his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

 

11 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3).

12 Id. at § 10.608(a), (b).

13 See T.B., Docket No. 18-1214 (issued January 29, 2019); C.B., Docket No. 08-1583 (issued December 9, 2008).

14 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3)(i)-(ii); K.L., Docket No 08-2444 (issued June 12, 2009). Evidence that repeats or 

duplicates evidence already in the case record has no evidentiary value and does not constitute a basis for reopening 

a claim for merit review. Denis M. Dupor, 51 ECAB 482 (2000).

15 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3)(iii); see M.C., Docket No. 18-0841 (issued September 13, 2019); D.P., Docket No. 17-0290 

(issued May 14, 2018).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 18, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 27, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board