United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN DORN VA 

MEDICAL CENTER, Columbia, SC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1305

Issued: April 5, 2023

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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 12, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an

August 16, 2022 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 over 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 Counsel did not appeal OWCP’s March 29, 2022 merit decision. Therefore, that decision 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 her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 29, 2021 appellant, then a 59-year-old medical clerk, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging bilateral hand and arm conditions due to factors of her federal 

employment, including typing on a computer. She indicated that soreness developed over time, 

and she felt some numbness in fingers and soreness in an unspecified hand and arm. Appellant 

further indicated that she first became aware of the condition on September 23, 2021 and she 

subsequently became aware of the relationship to her federal employment on September 24, 2021. 

OWCP received a narrative statement from appellant on December 29, 2021 indicating that 

on September 23, 2021 she woke up with pain in her left shoulder and numbness in both hands. 

Appellant felt weakness at work while using a computer or telephone and experienced symptoms 

during regular activities at home as well. 

In a development letter dated January 6, 2022, OWCP informed appellant that additional 

factual and medical evidence was necessary to establish her claim. A questionnaire was provided 

to her to substantiate the factual elements of her claim. Further, OWCP asked appellant to provide 

a narrative report from a physician containing a detailed description of findings and a diagnosis, 

as well as a medical explanation of how the claimed work incident caused or aggravated a medical 

condition. It afforded her 30 days to respond. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted progress notes from Dr. Bruce R. Monaco, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. On October 21, 2022 Dr. Monaco related that she had a sore 

left thumb and “something” going up and down an unspecified arm that she indicated was due to 

her employment. Appellant further indicated that the initial pain in her hand began on June 18, 

2019, and extended to her shoulder in September 2021. Past surgical history was noted for

de Quervain’s tendon release and right-hand ganglion cysts. Dr. Monaco assessed de Qurevain’s

tenosynovitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, and bilateral cubital tunnel syndrome. On October 25, 

2021 he reviewed x-rays of appellant’s hand and elbow. 

OWCP received an electromyography (EMG) report dated November 4, 2021 and signed 

by Dr. Nasir Waheed, a neurologist. The report indicated electrophysiological evidence of

moderate severity right and mild-to-moderate left median neuropathy at the wrist, as in carpal 

tunnel syndrome.

On December 3, 2021 appellant was seen for a follow up with Dr. Monaco. Dr. Monaco 

assessed pseudocholinesterase deficiency, left-hand de Quervain’s tenosynovitis, and carpal tunnel 

syndrome.

Appellant also submitted a progress note dated December 21, 2021 by Dr. John R. Chu, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. She related that she was waiting for clearance to proceed with 

surgery. Appellant also requested a hand brace and a work restriction note. 
3

In a completed questionnaire dated January 26, 2022, appellant replied that both her leftand right-hand conditions resulted from her employment activities, specifically computer typing, 

mouse clicking, and phone use. She also noted a previous right-hand surgery for de Quervain’s

tenosynovitis.

By decision dated March 29, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that she had not established that her diagnosed bilateral hand and arm conditions were 

causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

On August 4, 2022 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. In support of 

the request for reconsideration, counsel submitted a medical report from Dr. John F. Mattei, a 

Board-certified family practice physician, dated July 8, 2022. Dr. Mattei diagnosed bilateral 

carpal tunnel syndrome and de Quervain’stenosynovitis. He indicated that both diagnoses resulted 

from repetitive use and repetitive trauma. Dr. Mattei noted that appellant worked as a medical 

scheduler and worked on a computer all day using a mouse and a keyboard. He further opined 

that both conditions were causally related to her employment. Dr. Mattei also reviewed appellant’s 

EMG and indicated that it showed moderate carpal tunnel syndrome in the right wrist, mild-tomoderate carpal tunnel syndrome in the left wrist, and bilateral de Quervain’s tenosynovitis. 

By decision dated August 16, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

of the merits of her claim. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8128 of FECA vests OWCP with a discretionary authority to determine whether it 

will review an award for or against compensation, either under its own authority or on application 

by a claimant.4

Section 10.608(b) of OWCP’s regulations provide that a timely request for reconsideration 

may be granted if OWCP determines that the claimant has presented evidence and/or argument 

that meet at least one of the standards described in section 10.606(b)(3).5 This section provides 

that the request for reconsideration must be submitted in writing and set forth arguments and 

contain evidence that (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 Section 10.608(b) 

provides that, when a request for reconsideration is timely, but fails to meet at least one of these 

three requirements, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without reopening the case 

for a review on the merits.7

4

Id. at § 8128(a).

5 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(a).

6

Id. at § 10.606(b)(3); see L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019).

7

Id. at § 10.608(b); J.B., Docket No. 20-0145 (issued September 8, 2020); Y.K., Docket No. 18-1167 (issued 

April 2, 2020).
4

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.8 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

and reviews the case on its merits.

9

 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.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP improperly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

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

In support of her request for reconsideration, appellant submitted a medical report from

Dr. Mattei dated July 8, 2022. Dr. Mattei noted her factors of federal employment, specifically 

her typing duties. He diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and de Quervain’s tenosynovitis. 

Dr. Mattei related that both diagnoses come from repetitive use and repetitive trauma. He also 

reviewed appellant’s EMG and indicated that it showed moderate carpal tunnel syndrome in the 

right wrist, mild-to-moderate carpal tunnel syndrome in the left wrist, and bilateral de Quervain’s 

tenosynovitis. Dr. Mattei opined that both conditions were causally related to her employment.

The Board finds that the July 8, 2022 medical note from Dr. Mattei constitutes relevant and 

pertinent new evidence, because it specifically addresses the underlying medical issue in this case, 

i.e., whether appellant has established that factors of her federal employment caused or aggravated 

her diagnosed bilateral hand and arm conditions. Therefore, the submission of this evidence 

requires reopening of her claim for merit review pursuant to the third requirement of 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3).

11

 Accordingly, the Board will set aside OWCP’s August 16, 2022 decision, and 

remand the case for an appropriate merit decision on appellant’s claim.

12

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP improperly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

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

8

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.

9

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

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

11 M.P., Docket No. 20-0948 (issued August 11, 2022); M.R., Docket No. 19-1449 (issued March 11, 2020);

D.C., Docket No. 18-0082 (issued July 12, 2018).

12 Id.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 16, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and this case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: April 5, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board