United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, GEORGE 

WASHINGTON MEMORIAL PARKWAY, 

McLean, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0158

Issued: May 24, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 9, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 28, 2020 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated February 7, 2020, to the filing of this appeal, 

pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board lacks jurisdiction over 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).

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 6, 2019 appellant, then a 50-year-old police officer, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on May 4, 2019, after participating in physical training while in the 

performance of duty, he arrived at his car in the parking lot and experienced a medical episode that 

caused him to become disoriented. He noted that he had to be transferred to the hospital by 

ambulance.

In a May 16, 2019 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that it had received no 

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

necessary to establish his claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded 

appellant 30 days to respond. No additional evidence was received.

By decision dated June 20, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis from a qualified 

physician in connection with the accepted May 4, 2019 employment incident. It concluded, 

therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined under FECA.

On June 27, 2019 appellant requested a review of the written record before a representative 

of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

In a May 4, 2019 surgical report, Dr. Ramesh Singh, a Board-certified cardiac surgeon, 

performed an emergency-type A dissection repair to treat appellant’s acute type A aortic 

dissection.

Appellant submitted incident reports dated May 4 and 5, 2019 in which M.Y. and C.H.,

coworkers, explained the events of the May 4, 2019 employment incident where appellant was 

found in a rear parking lot requiring medical assistance.

In a May 6, 2019 authorization for examination and/or treatment, (Form CA-16), the 

employing establishment authorized examination and medical treatment of appellant for the 

May 4, 2019 employment incident. In Part B of the Form CA-16, attending physician’s report 

dated May 8, 2019, Dr. Singh indicated that appellant underwent open heart surgery on May 4, 

2019 to treat an ascending aortic aneurysm. He checked a box marked “No” to indicate his opinion 

that appellant’s condition was not caused or aggravated by his employment activity.

In a May 8, 2019 medical report, Dr. Pamela Henry, a general surgery resident, diagnosed 

an acute thoracic aortic dissection and recommended a treatment plan. In a duty status report 

(Form CA-17) of even date, Dr. Singh diagnosed an acute type A aortic dissection, an ascending 

aortic aneurysm and checked a box marked “No” to indicate that he was not able to perform his 

regular work duties.

On May 18, 2019 Dr. Sairah Bashir, a Board-certified neurologist, evaluated appellant for 

a type A dissection repair with a left suboccipital headache with an otherwise normal neurological 

examination and negative brain scan on May 16, 2019. She reviewed the history of the May 4, 

2019 employment incident and his initial visit to the hospital in which he presented with a history 

of a coffee ground emesis and was found to have an aortic dissection on review of a computerized 

tomography (CT) scan of his chest. Appellant underwent a repair of an aortic ascending aneurysm.
3

By decision dated September 12, 2019, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed, as 

modified, the June 20, 2019 decision, finding that the medical evidence submitted was sufficient 

to establish a diagnosed medical condition. The claim remained denied, however, because the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between appellant’s 

diagnosed condition and the accepted May 4, 2019 employment incident.

By decision dated September 25, 2019, OWCP denied authorization for the May 4, 2019

emergency type A dissection repair surgical procedure. It found that the May 6, 2019 Form CA16 was not in effect at the time of the emergency treatment on May 4, 2019. As a result, OWCP 

found that the emergency treatment and hospitalization that resulted from the May 4, 2019 

employment incident was not authorized.

On October 10, 2019 appellant requested a review of the record before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review of the September 25, 2019 decision.

In a letter of even date, M.W., appellant’s supervisor, outlined the sequence of events 

relating to the May 4, 2019 employment incident that led to appellant’s emergency hospitalization.

In a November 18, 2019 medical note, Dr. Singh indicated that appellant underwent open 

heart surgery on May 4, 2019. He explained that a bicuspid aortic valve could be associated with 

an aortic aneurysm, which could lead to an aortic dissection, especially with strenuous activity.

By decision dated February 7, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

September 25, 2019 decision.

On March 2, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s February 7, 2020 

decision. He resubmitted copies of the October 10, 2019 letter from the employing establishment 

and Dr. Singh’s November 18, 2019 medical note.

By decision dated October 28, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration

of the merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a), finding that his March 2 2020 letter 

neither raised substantial legal questions, nor included new or relevant evidence.

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.2

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 

 

2 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 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

OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by 

OWCP.3

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.4 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

and reviews the case on its merits.5 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.6

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 March 2, 2020 timely reconsideration request, appellant did not show that OWCP 

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

legal argument not previously considered. Consequently, appellant was not entitled to a review of 

the merits based on the first and second above-noted requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).7

Along with his reconsideration request, appellant submitted a copy of an October 10, 2019 

letter from his supervisor, recounting the events of the May 4, 2019 employment incident as well 

as a copy of Dr. Singh’s November 18, 2019 medical note, previously considered by OWCP. The 

Board has held that providing additional evidence that either duplicates or is substantially similar 

to evidence of record does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.8 This evidence, therefore, 

is insufficient to warrant further merit review. 

The Board, therefore, 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.

 

3 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).

4

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.

5

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

6

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

7 Supra note 5; T.B., Docket No. 18-1214 (issued January 29, 2019); C.B., Docket No. 08-1583 (issued 

December 9, 2008).

8 L.K., Docket No. 18-1183 (issued May 12, 2020); M.O., Docket No. 19-1677 (issued February 25, 2020).
5

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).9

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 28, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 24, 2021

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

 

9 The Board notes that the employing establishment issued a Form CA-16. A properly executed Form CA-16

authorization may constitute a contract for payment of medical expenses to a medical facility or physician, when 

properly executed. The form creates a contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee directly, to pay 

for the cost of the examination or treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim. The period for which treatment 

is authorized by a Form CA-16 is limited to 60 days from the date of issuance, unless terminated earlier by OWCP. 

20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c). P.R., Docket No. 18-0737 (issued November 2, 2018); N.M., Docket No. 17-1655 (issued 

January 24, 2018); Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).