United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.D., Appellant

and

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Chicago, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1264

Issued: April 4, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 19, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an August 3,

2021 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).2 Pursuant 

to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the 

Board lacks jurisdiction to consider 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 The case record also contains a March 11, 2021 merit decision of OWCP. As counsel did not appeal from that 

decision, it is not presently before the Board. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3.

3

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 22, 2021 appellant, then a 41-year-old general legal and kindred administrator, 

filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 24, 2020, while working 

remotely, he tripped and fell over cords when he attempted to plug in his laptop while in the 

performance of duty. He indicated that, as a result of the fall, he aggravated his shoulders.4 

Appellant did not stop work. On the reverse side of the claim form the employing establishment 

controverted the claim.

In a January 29, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that it had not 

received any evidence in support of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical 

evidence necessary and provided a questionnaire for completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 

days to respond. No response was received.

By decision dated March 11, 2021, OWCP accepted that the November 24, 2020 

employment incident occurred, as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that he had not submitted any medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis in 

connection with the accepted employment incident. Consequently, OWCP concluded that 

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

On May 27, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of the March 11, 2021 decision. In 

support of his request, he submitted an April 15, 2021 response to OWCP’s development 

questionnaire, noting that he separated from employment on December 4, 2020 due to harassment,

and that he first sought treatment for the alleged injuries at an emergency room on 

December 12, 2020.

By decision dated August 3, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

of the merits of his claim.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

matter of right.5 OWCP has discretionary authority in this regard and has imposed certain 

4 Appellant previously filed a Form CA-1 alleging that he sustained a left shoulder injury on September 9, 2019, 

which OWCP denied under OWCP File No. xxxxxx871. He also previously filed a Form CA-1 alleging that he injured 

both shoulders and his lower back on August 13, 2018 when he tripped and fell while in the performance of duty, to 

which OWCP assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx803. OWCP has not administratively combined appellant’s claims.

5

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
3

limitations in exercising its authority.6 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.7

A timely request for reconsideration, including all supporting documents, must set forth 

arguments, and contain evidence that either: (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 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.9

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).

Appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of 

law, nor did he advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. 

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

second above-noted requirements under section 10.606(b)(3).10

In support of his reconsideration request, appellant submitted an April 15, 2021 response 

to OWCP’s development questionnaire asserting that he sought medical treatment for his alleged 

injuries on December 12, 2020 and that he subsequently separated from the employing 

establishment due to harassment. While the evidence is new, it is not relevant because it does not 

address the underlying issue in this case which is medical in nature, i.e., whether appellant 

established a medical condition in connection with the accepted November 24, 2020 employment 

incident. The Board has held that the submission of evidence or argument which does not address 

the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case. 11 Therefore, appellant

is not entitled to a merit review based on the third requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.607. 

7

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 (September 2020). 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.

8

Id. at § 10.606(b)(3); see L.F., Docket No. 20-1371 (issued March 12, 2021); B.R., Docket No. 19-0372 (issued 

February20, 2020).

9

Id. at § 10.608.

10 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3); see also C.C., Docket No. 19-1622 (issued May 28, 2020); M.S., Docket No. 18-1041 

(issued October 25, 2018); C.N., Docket No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008).

11 A.J., Docket No. 20-0926 (issued January 26, 2021); JimmyO. Gilmore, 37 ECAB 257 (1985); Edward Matthew 

Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224 (1979).
4

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 3, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 4, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board