United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.K., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SAN RAMON POST 

OFFICE, San Ramon, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1132

Issued: December 20, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On July 20, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 7, 2022 nonmerit decision of 

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

from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated December 7, 2021 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 her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 16, 2021 appellant, then a 36-year-old carrier technician, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 12, 2021 she experienced stress and shock while 

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

in the performance of duty when B.H., a shop steward, used profanities in a conference room. She 

stopped work on August 13, 2021.

In an accompanying statement dated August 12, 2021, appellant related that B.H. pointed 

his finger and yelled profanities at her in front of her supervisor, S.E., and S.L., a shop steward.

OWCP received a hospital record dated August 13, 2021 which indicated that appellant 

was verbally abused the prior day by a coworker and presented with symptoms of emotional 

disturbance. Appellant’s diagnoses were listed as acute stress disorder and anxiety disorder. In a 

work status report dated August 16, 2021, Dr. Swapna Merupula, Board-certified in internal 

medicine, placed appellant off work from August 13 through 20, 2021.

On September 23, 2021 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Alberto Gerardo Lopez, a Boardcertified psychiatrist, for a second opinion evaluation. Appellant did not attend the evaluation.

By decision dated December 7, 2021, OWCP found that the evidence of record established 

as a compensable factor of employment that B.H. pointed his finger and yelled profanities at 

appellantin front of her supervisor and a union representative; however, the claim remained denied 

as the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that her diagnosed acute stress and 

anxiety disorders were caused or aggravated by the accepted compensable employment factor.

On March 10, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration. No additional evidence was 

received. 

By decision dated June 7, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of her claim, pursuant to 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. 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 

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

OWCP.3

2

Id. at § 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).

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

Appellant has neither shown that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point 

of law, nor advanced a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP.

7

 

Consequently, she is not entitled to a review of the merits of her claim based on the first and second 

above-noted requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).8

Moreover, appellant did not submit additional evidence on reconsideration. Because 

appellant’s request for reconsideration did not include relevant and pertinent new evidence not 

previously considered she is not entitled to a review of the merits based on the third requirement 

under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).9

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.

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 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.

5

Id. at § 10.608(a); see also F.V., Docket No. 18-0239 (issued May 8, 2020); M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

6

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

7

Id. at § 10.606(b)(3); see also V.P., Docket No. 18-0440 (issued August 24, 2018); A.F., Docket No. 18-0295 

(issued July 18, 2018); T.H., Docket Nos. 17-1578 and 17-1651 (issued April26, 2018); DeborahG. Nuzzo,Docket 

No. 06-521 (issued May 15, 2006).

8

Id.

9

20 C.F.R. § 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).
4

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 June 7, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 20, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board