United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NORFOLK 

NAVAL SHIPYARD, Portsmouth, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0927

Issued: January 29, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 16, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 26, 2019 merit 

decision and a February 20, 2020 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1(FECA) and 

20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

ISSUES

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

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).

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 21, 2018 appellant, then a 59-year-old shipfitter, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed dermatitis due to factors of his federal 

employment. He noted that he first became aware of his condition and realized that it was caused 

or aggravated by factors of his federal employment on November 23, 2017. Appellant explained 

that the chemicals he was exposed to caused him pain and skin irritation around his sideburns and 

facial structure. He did not stop work. .

In an August 29, 2018 letter, Dr. Reginald Henry, a Board-certified dermatologist, noted 

that he had been treating appellant since March 2018 for an itchy dermatitis on his beard area and 

scalp. He explained that, through the use of medication, he was able to get appellant’s condition 

under control; however, when appellant cuts his beard his rashes return. Dr. Henry requested that 

appellant be assigned to a job where he did not have to wear a respirator so that he would not have 

to cut his beard and, thereby, prevent his rash. 

In an October 10, 2018 statement, R.C., appellant’s supervisor, indicated that at some point 

in October appellant began working with the painters. He recounted asking appellant how 

everything was going and he would respond that the paint fumes and chemicals that he used to 

mop the floors would bother him and cause headaches. In February 2018, R.C. began to notice 

facial sores in appellant’s beard. On March 29, 2018 appellant provided a letter from his physician 

that stated that wearing a respirator would worsen appellant’s skin condition. On August 21, 2018 

R.C. recounted that appellant was assigned to a job that required him to wear a respirator and he 

refused to shave his beard due to the issues he was dealing with on his face. 

In a November 5, 2018 personal statement, appellant explained that, from October 16 to 

December 14, 2017, he was assigned to a job that required him to sweep, mop, and wax various 

floors. Shortly, after he began his assignment, he recounted experiencing headaches due to the 

smell of the liquid chemicals and paint and informing R.C. of his situation. Appellant worked for 

eight hours a day, five days per week. By November 23, 2017 his sideburns, face, jaw, and chin 

began itching, burning and watering. Appellant went to a local pharmacy where a pharmacist 

recommended a medication to address his symptoms. After the medication did not help, he 

followed up with Dr. Henry on March 2, 2018 who continued to treat him for his condition. 

In a development letter dated November 21, 2018, OWCP advised appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim and instructed him as to the factual and medical evidence necessary to 

establish his claim. It asked him to complete a questionnaire to provide further details regarding 

the circumstances of his claimed injury and requested a narrative medical report from his treating 

physician, which contained a detailed description of findings and diagnosis, explaining how his 

work activities caused, contributed to, or aggravated his medical condition. In a separate 

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

comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding the accuracy of appellant’s allegations. It 

afforded both parties 30 days to respond. No additional evidence from either party was received.2 

 

2 The Board notes that the November 21, 2018 development letters to appellant and the employing establishment 

were both returned as undeliverable. 
3

By decision dated January 2, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that his diagnosed 

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

OWCP continued to receive evidence. In a January 28, 2019 letter, Dr. Henry detailed his 

history of treatment of appellant for dermatitis. He explained that it was never clear what his 

dermatitis was from, but appellant informed him that during the fall of 2017 appellant began to 

experience headaches and rashes after he began cleaning and waxing office floors at work. 

Dr. Henry stated that his dermatitis did not fit any specific dermatitis diagnosis and explained that 

the condition was most often a reaction to something. He opined that appellant’s condition was 

likely a reaction to the chemicals he was exposed to at work and declared that he could not find 

any other reason for him to develop a rash. 

In a February 20, 2019 documentation of temporary work restrictions, Dr. Elizabeth 

Merrell, Board-certified in internal medicine, submitted temporary work restrictions for appellant 

and advised that he not use a respirator. 

In an undated statement, appellant provided that he was submitting additional information 

concerning the chemicals he was exposed to at work, as well as additional statements from his 

coworkers. He attached a series of material safety data sheets providing information on an epoxy 

adhesive, a heavy duty nonduty l floor stripper, an industrial enamel, nonflaming water-based 

enamel, a silicone alkyd copolymer, a leak sealer, and a specially denatured alcohol. 

On June 3, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s January 2, 2019 decision. 

In a March 27, 2019 statement L.B., appellant’s coworker, recounted appellant’s duties 

consisting of sweeping, moping and stripping floors, taking out trash, cleaning tables with furniture 

polish, sanding walls, painting walls, and wiping down trophy cases. 

By decision dated July 17, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its January 2, 2019 

decision. 

OWCP continued to receive evidence. On July 25, 2019 Dr. Henry referred appellant to

Dr. Ronald Buckley, a Board-certified dermatologist, for a second opinion concerning appellant’s

medical condition. 

In an August 22, 2019 medical report, Dr. Buckley evaluated appellant for a skin rash. He 

noted the onset of appellant’s symptoms were gradual over two years and began following 

exposure to chemicals at work. Dr. Buckley provided that, based on Dr. Henry’s evaluation, he 

concurred with his assessment and treatment and opined that it was likely that the chemicals used 

in appellant’s work environment may have contributed to the development of his condition. He 

concluded by reasoning that it was likely that appellant’s condition would exacerbate if appellant

returned to his original job. 

Appellant also resubmitted copies of the material safety data sheets and medical evidence 

previously received by OWCP. 
4

On September 6, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s July 17, 2019

decision. 

By decision dated September 26, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its July 17, 2019 

decision. 

OWCP continued to receive evidence. Appellant submitted a November 1, 2019 report of

Dr. Henry the contents of which mirrored his January 28, 2019 report dated November 1, 2019. 

On November 18, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s September 26, 

2019 decision. 

By decision dated February 20, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration of the merits of his claim. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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,3that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, 

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

to the employment injury.4 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.5

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.6

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.7 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factor(s) must be based on a 

 

3 S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

4

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

5 K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

6 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).

7 T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).
5

complete factual and medical background.8 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be 

expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical 

rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s 

specific employment factor(s).9

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

developed dermatitis causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

Appellant submitted multiple copies of Dr. Henry’s January 28, 2019 letter in which

Dr. Henry detailed his history of treatment of appellant for his dermatitis. He informed Dr. Henry 

that during the fall of 2017 he began experiencing headaches and rashes after he began cleaning 

and waxing office floors at work. Dr. Henry explained that appellant’s dermatitis did not fit any 

specific diagnosis and opined that his condition was likely a reaction to the chemicals he was 

exposed to at work. While he provided an affirmative opinion on causal relationship, he did not 

offer any medical rationale sufficient to explain how and why he believes that the factors of 

appellant’s federal employment could have resulted in or contributed to his diagnosed condition. 

Without explaining how the chemicals appellant’s was exposed to at work caused or contributed 

to his condition, Dr. Henry’s letter is of limited probative value.10 Additionally, Dr. Henry’s

statement that appellant’s condition was “likely” a reaction to the chemicals appellant was exposed 

to is speculative and equivocal, and thus insufficient to establish appellant’s burden of proof.11 

Further, his conclusions are largely based on appellant’s opinion as to what caused his condition, 

rather than by his independent analysis of the cause of his dermatitis.12 For these reasons,

Dr. Henry’s January 28, 2019 letter is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

Dr. Henry’s remaining evidence consisted of multiple copies of his August 29, 2018 letter 

in which he explained that, through the use of medication, he was able to get appellant’s dermatitis 

under control and recommended that appellant only perform work that did not require him to shave

his beard or to wear a respirator. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an 

opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition or disability is of no probative value on 

the issue of causal relationship.13 As Dr. Henry’s August 29, 2018 letter did not offer an opinion 

 

8 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018).

9

Id.; Victor J. Woodhams, supra note 6.

10 See A.P., Docket No. 19-0224 (issued July 11, 2019).

11 The Board has held that speculative and equivocal medical opinions regarding causal relationship have no 

probative value. R.C., Docket No. 18-1695 (issued March 12, 2019); see Ricky S. Storms, 52 ECAB 349 (2001) (while 

the opinion of a physician supporting causal relationship need not be one of absolute medical certainty, the opinion 

must not be speculative or equivocal. The opinion should be expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical 

certainty).

12 See D.L., Docket No. 15-0866 (issued November 23, 2015); J.S., Docket No. 14-0818 (issued August 7, 2014).

13 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
6

as to whether appellant’s dermatitis was causally related to the accepted factors of his federal 

employment, the Board finds that it is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

Dr. Buckley noted in his August 22, 2019 medical report that the onset of appellant’s 

symptoms were gradual over two years and began following his exposure to chemicals at work. 

He opined that, based on Dr. Henry’s evaluation, it was likely that the chemicals used in 

appellant’s work environment may have contributed to the development of appellant’s condition. 

As explained above, Dr. Buckley’s statement that it was “likely” that the chemicals used in 

appellant’s work environment “may” have contributed to the development of his condition is 

speculative and equivocal, and thus insufficient to establish appellant’s burden of proof.14 For this 

reason, his August 22, 2019 medical report is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

The remaining medical evidence consisted of Dr. Merrell’s February 20, 2019 

documentation of temporary work restrictions in which she submitted temporary work restrictions 

for appellant and advised that he not used a respirator. The Board has held that a medical report 

that does not address causal relationship is of no probative value.15 For this reason, Dr. Merrell’s 

medical evidence is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing that his 

dermatitis is causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment, the Board finds 

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

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 FECA16 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 payment of compensation at any time on his own motion or on application.17

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a), OWCP 

regulations provide that the evidence or argument submitted by a claimant must: (1) show that 

OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advance a relevant legal 

argument not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitute relevant and pertinent new 

evidence not previously considered by OWCP.18

 

14 Supra note 11.

15 L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

16 Supra note 1.

17 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

18 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(b)(3); see also H.H., Docket No. 18-1660 (issued March 14, 2019); L.G., Docket No. 09-

1517 (issued March 3, 2010); C.N., Docket No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008).
7

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

decision for which review is sought.19 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens and reviews 

the case on its merits.20 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.21

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).

Appellant filed a timely request for reconsideration on February 20, 2020,22 but he did not 

establish that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law, or advance a 

relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. Consequently, the Board finds that 

he 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).23

Appellant also failed to submit relevant and pertinent new evidence in support of his 

February 20, 2020 request for reconsideration. The underlying issue on reconsideration was 

whether he had met his burden of proof to establish that his dermatitis was causally related to the 

accepted factors of his federal employment. This is a medical question that requires rationalized 

medical opinion evidence to resolve the issue.24 Appellant submitted a November 1, 2019 report 

of Dr. Henry the contents of which mirrored the January 28, 2019 report dated November 1, 2019. 

While this evidence is new, it is substantially similar to the prior evidence of record. Providing 

additional medical evidence that either duplicates or is substantially similar to evidence of record 

does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.25 As appellant did not provide relevant and 

pertinent new evidence, he is not entitled to a merit based on the third requirement under 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3).26

 

19 Id. at § 10.607(a).

20 Id. at § 10.608(a); see also M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

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

22 Supra note 19; J.F., Docket No. 16-1233 (issued November 23, 2016).

23 Supra note 18.

24 E.T., Docket No. 14-1087 (issued September 5, 2014).

25 M.O., Docket No. 19-1677 (issued February 25, 2020); Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984).

26 S.H., Docket No. 19-1897 (issued April 21, 2020); M.K., Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April 10, 2019); Edward 

Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224-25 (1979).
8

Accordingly, the Board 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.27

CONCLUSION

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

developed dermatitis 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).

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 20, 2020 and September 26, 2019 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: January 29, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

27 See D.S., Docket No. 18-0353 (issued February 18, 2020).