United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, RIO GRANDE 

PERFORMANCE CLUSTER, San Antonio, TX,

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0289

Issued: June 23, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the Appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. MCGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 17, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a

December 14, 2021 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

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

(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 over the merits of this case.

4

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 June 25, 2021 appellant, then a 43-year-old distributionwindow clerk,filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on June 19, 2021 she developed de Quervain’s 

tenosynovitis of the left wrist after lifting a heavy and unevenly weighted parcel thatslipped out 

of her hand while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the form, the employing 

establishment acknowledged that she was injured in the performance of duty. Appellant stopped 

work on June 19, 2021 and returned to work on June 21, 2021. 

On June 29, 2021 appellant accepted an offer of modified assignment (limited duty), as a 

sales distribution associate with physical restrictions of standing, walking, and sitting for up to 

eight hours per day. 

In a development letter dated July 6, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence required and provided a 

questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence. 

On June 25, 2021 appellant was treated by Dr. Brian Raimondo, a Board-certified family 

medicine physician, who related that on June 19, 2021 she felt a “pop” after she lifted a heavy 

package with her left wrist and placed it in a bin while distributing packages to carriers. 

Dr. Raimondo further noted that she complained of persistent pain at the radial and ulnar aspects 

of the left wrist. In a return to work note of even date, he released appellant to work with 

restrictions of no lifting over five pounds through July 1, 2021. 

In a July 1, 2021 report, Dr. Raimondo noted that appellant presented in follow up for a 

left wrist and hand injury that occurred at work on June 19, 2021 when she was lifting heavy 

packages. He related that she had notseen improvement in her symptoms with the use of a splint, 

2 The Board notes that counsel did not appeal from August 12 and November 12, 2021 merit decisions. Counsel

only identified the December 14, 2021 nonmerit decision on the application for review (Form AB-1). Therefore, the 

Board will not consider the August12 and November 12, 2021 merit decisions onthis appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3; 

see also D.E., Docket No. 21-0531 (issued June16, 2021).

3

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4 The Board notes that, following the December 14, 2021decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, 

the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’sreview of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record 

that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the 

Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this 

additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
3

medication and home exercise. In a return to work note of even date, Dr. Raimondo advised that

appellant could return to work on July 1, 2021 with restrictions of no repetitive motions, mail 

sorting, or lifting over two pounds. 

In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated July 8, 2021, Dr. Daniel Beltran, a chiropractor, 

provided a description of injury that on June 19, 2021 appellant was pitching packages when a 

package slipped from her hand, and she experienced pain in her left hand when she picked up the 

package. He diagnosed left wrist and forearm pain with limited strength. In a return to work note 

of even date, Dr. Beltran held appellant off work from July 8 through August 17, 2021. 

In a medical report dated July 8, 2021, Dr. Melissa Kempf, a Board-certified family 

medicine physician, noted that appellant presented with pain in the left wrist radiating into the 

thumb. She related that the pain began on June 19, 2021 while appellant was throwing packages 

into bins at work. Dr. Kempf diagnosed a sprain and noted appellant’s history of bilateral carpal 

tunnel syndrome (CTS). She opined that appellant’s condition was that of a work-related sprain 

likely caused by overuse due to daily repetitive movements of tossing and sorting packages, 

particularly on June 19, 2021. 

In a medical report dated July 28, 2021, Dr. Kempf noted that a magnetic resonance 

imaging (MRI) scan revealed mild degeneration at the base of the thumb with no fractures. She 

related that appellant had not experienced improvement of her pain symptoms with prescribed 

medication. 

On August 6, 2021 the employing establishment noted that appellant’s date of injury was 

February 12, 2020 and that she had accepted a modified job offer on June 29, 2021. It further 

indicated that she had been placed on temporary total disability status since July 8, 2021. In a 

diagnostic report of July 8, 2021, Dr. Michael Kim, a Board-certified radiologist, performed a 

computerized tomography scan of the left wrist, which revealed stippled lucencies in the capitate. 

By decision dated August 12, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she had 

not established that the June 19, 2021 incident occurred, as alleged. It noted that she had not 

completed and returned the questionnaire. Consequently, OWCP found that appellant had not met 

the requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

In Part B of an authorization for examination and/or treatment (Form CA-16) dated 

June 25, 2021, Dr. Raimondo stated that appellant was first examined on June 23, 2021. He

diagnosed left wrist sprain as a result of lifting packages. 

On September 2, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s August 12, 2021 

decision. 

In a diagnostic report dated July 23, 2021, Dr. Kim performed an MRI scan of appellant’s 

left wrist, which revealed mild degenerative changes at the first joint and a bone contusion. 

On August 23, 2021 appellant responded to OWCP’s development questionnaire, 

explaining that, on the alleged date of injury, she was diagnosed with a strain after a heavy box 

slipped from her hand while pitching parcels. She asserted that she did not sustain any other injury 

and that her preexisting CTS was unrelated to the alleged employment incident. 
4

In a medical report dated September 8, 2021, Dr. Adham Abdelfattah, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, related that appellant experienced left wrist pain on June 19, 2021 while 

sorting mail. He noted that she had received steroid injections for her preexisting condition of 

CTS. Dr. Abdelfattah diagnosed pain and a strain of the left wrist and tenosynovitis. 

On October 1, 2021 appellant was seen by Dr. Abdelfattah with ongoing complaints of left 

wrist pain. He related that her continued pain caused difficulty in completing work and daily

activities. 

By decision dated November 12, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its August 12, 2021

decision. It found that appellant had provided inconsistent statements regarding the mechanism of 

injury. 

OWCP received duplicate copies of Dr. Kempf’s July 8 and 28, 2021 medical reports. 

In a Form CA-17 dated November 11, 2021, Dr. Beltran reiterated the alleged mechanism 

of injury on June 19, 2021 and repeated his previous diagnoses and medical findings. 

On December 3, 2021 appellantrequested reconsideration of OWCP’s November 12, 2021 

decision. 

In a statement dated December 1, 2021, appellant explained that she was still unable to 

perform her work duties and continued to work in a light-duty capacity due to ongoing left wrist 

pain.

By decision dated December 14, 2021, OWCP denied reconsideration of the merits of 

appellant’s claim. 

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 payment of compensation at any time on his own motion or on application.5

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.6

5

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see D.G., Docket No. 20-1203 (issued April28, 2021); T.K., Docket No. 19-1700 (issued 

April 30, 2020); see L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); seeD.G., id.; L.D., id.; see alsoL.G., Docket No. 09-1517 (issued March 3, 2010); C.N., 

Docket No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008).
5

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

of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.7 A timely request for reconsideration may be 

granted if OWCP determines that the employee has presented evidence or provided an argument 

that meets at least one of the requirements for reconsideration. If OWCP chooses to grant 

reconsideration, it reopens and reviews the case on its merits.8 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.9

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’s timely December 3, 2021 request for reconsideration does not demonstrate that 

OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law. Moreover, she has not advanced 

a relevant legal argument not previously considered. In support of her December 3, 2021 request 

for reconsideration, appellant submitted a December 1, 2021 statement where she asserted that she 

was still unable to perform her work duties and continued to experience left wrist pain. However, 

she did not describe the factual circumstances or provide a detailed account of the alleged injury 

or explain how the injury occurred. Thus, appellant has not raised any new or relevant legal 

arguments not previously considered. 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).10

The Board further finds that appellant did not submit any relevant and pertinent new 

evidence not previously considered. In support of her reconsideration request, appellantsubmitted

a November 11, 2021 Form CA-17 from Dr. Beltran and duplicate copies of his July 8 and 21, 

2021 reports. The Board finds that this evidence is not relevant to the underlying issue of whether 

she has established the factual component of her claim, specifically whether the alleged June 19, 

2021 employment incident occurred, as alleged. The Board has held that the submission of 

evidence or argument which does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a 

7

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 (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.

8

Id. at § 10.608(a); D.G., supra note 5; F.V., Docket No. 18-0230 (issued May 8, 2020); see also M.S., 59 ECAB 

231 (2007).

9

Id. at § 10.608(b); B.S., Docket No. 20-0927 (issued January 29, 2021); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued 

March 18, 2010).

10 See R.L., Docket No. 20-1403 (issued July 21, 2021); M.O., Docket No. 19-1677 (issued February 25, 2020); 

C.B., Docket No. 18-1108 (issued January 22, 2019).
6

basis for reopening a case.

11

 Thus, appellant is not entitled to a review of the merits of her claim 

based on the third requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).12

The Board, accordingly, finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant was not 

entitled to further review of the merits of her claim pursuant to 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.13

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).14

11 See A.M., Docket No. 20-1417 (issued July 30, 2021).

12 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see S.M., Docket No. 21-0392 (issued August 12, 2021); T.H., Docket No. 18-1809 

(issued May 23, 2019); JohnnyL. Wilson, Docket No. 98-2536 (issued February 13, 2001).

13 H.T., Docket No. 20-0799 (issued November 6, 2020); A.K., Docket No. 09-2032 (issued August 3, 2010); M.E., 

58 ECAB 694 (2007); SusanA. Filkins, 57 ECAB 630 (2006).

14 The Board notes that the employing establishment issued a Form CA-16, dated June25, 2021. A completed 

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. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.300(c); V.S., Docket No. 20-1034 (issued November 25, 2020); J.G.,Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 

2018); Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 14, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 23, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board