United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Baltimore, MD, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1569

Issued: March 7, 2019

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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 9, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 9, 2018 nonmerit decision 

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

from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated November 30, 2017, 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.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).

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. However, the Board’s Rules of 

Procedures provides: “The Board’s review 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.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 25, 2017 appellant, then an 47-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she experienced stress and depression causally related to 

factors of her federal employment. She became aware of her condition and its relationship to her 

federal employment on June 21, 2016. Appellant stopped work on April 15, 2017.

By decision dated November 30, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition 

claim. It found that she had not specifically described the work factors to which she attributed her 

stress, and thus, had not factually established her claim. OWCP further noted that appellant had 

not submitted medical evidence supporting a diagnosed condition resulting from her employment.

Appellant, on July 2, 2018, requested reconsideration. She submitted two pages of the 

November 30, 2017 OWCP decision. Appellant advised that she had attached a description of the 

implicated employment incidents and supporting medical evidence. OWCP, however, did not 

receive any additional evidence with the reconsideration request.

By decision dated July 9, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration as 

she had not raised an argument or submitted evidence sufficient to warrant reopening her case for 

further merit review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). It noted that she had not submitted any evidence 

with her reconsideration request other than part of its November 30, 2017 decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

to review an award for or against compensation.3 The Secretary of Labor may review an award 

for or against payment of compensation at any time on his own motion or on application.4

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review pursuant to FECA, the claimant must 

provide evidence or an argument 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.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.6 If OWCP chooses to grant reconsideration, it 

reopens and reviews the case on its merits.7 If the request is timely, but fails to meet at least one 

 

3 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

4

Id.

5 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see also B.W., Docket No. 18-1259 (issued January 25, 2019).

6

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 (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.

7

Id. at § 10.608(a); see also M.S., Docket No. 18-1041 (issued October 25, 2018).
3

of the requirements for reconsideration, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for review on the merits.8

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).

By decision dated November 30, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition 

claim as she had not sufficiently identified the employment factors to which she attributed her 

condition, and thus, failed to factually establish her claim. On July 2, 2018 appellant requested 

reconsideration. 

The Board finds that appellant has not shown that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law. Moreover, appellant has not advanced a relevant legal argument 

not previously considered. As such, she is not entitled to a review of the merits of her claim based 

on the first and second above-noted requirements under section 10.606(b)(3).9

The Board further finds that appellant has not provided any relevant and pertinent new 

evidence not previously considered. With her reconsideration request, appellant submitted two 

pages of OWCP’s November 30, 2017 decision. The Board has held that the submission of 

evidence that duplicates or is substantially similar to evidence already in the case record does not 

constitute a basis for reopening a case.10 As appellant did not provide relevant and pertinent new 

evidence, she is not entitled to a merit review based on the third requirement under section 

10.606(b)(3).11

The Board, accordingly, finds that appellant did not meet 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.12

On appeal appellant contends that OWCP did not receive the correct documents in support 

of her claim.13 She raises argument relevant to the merits of her claim. The only issue before the 

Board, however, is whether OWCP properly denied her request for reconsideration of the merits 

of the claim, and thus, these arguments are not before the Board at this time.14

 

8

Id. at § 10.608(b); K.S., Docket No. 18-1022 (issued October 24, 2018).

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

10 See A.M., Docket No. 18-0716 (issued December 10, 2018).

11 R.L., Docket No. 18-0175 (issued September 5, 2018).

12 See L.A., Docket No. 18-1226 (issue December 28, 2018) (when an application for reconsideration does not meet 

at least one of the three requirements enumerated under section 10.606(b)(3), OWCP will deny the application for 

reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on the merits).

13 As noted, the Board has no jurisdiction to review the additional evidence submitted by appellant with her appeal. 

Supra note 2.

14 H.W., Docket No. 18-1175 (issued December 6, 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 July 9, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 7, 2019

Washington, D

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board