United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Chicago, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0006

Issued: December 28, 2022

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, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 1, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 26, 2021 nonmerit

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

elapsed from the lastmerit decision, dated December 23, 2020, to the filingof 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 November 2, 2020 appellant, then a 28-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on October 30, 2020 she sustained an abrasion and scratches of 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

the left thigh/upper leg when she was shot several times with a paintball gun while in the 

performance of duty. She stopped work on October 30, 2020.

In a statement dated October 30, 2020, appellant asserted that on the date of injury, while 

delivering mail, someone inside of a car shot her with a paintball gun, hitting her arm, back, and 

thigh, which caused severe bruising, stinging, and burns. She related that she believed the gun 

was real.

In a development letter dated November 17, 2020, 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.

A police report dated October 30, 2020 noted that appellant was involved in an incident 

involving a firearm on October 30, 2020 at 7:04 p.m.

In a note dated November 5, 2020, Kathy Abbott, Psy.D., a licensed clinical psychologist, 

noted that she had previously treated appellant in early 2018 after her boyfriend was shot to death 

in her car. She related that appellant developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following 

this incident. Dr. Abbott related that on November 4, 2020 appellant returned for counseling after 

she was shot several times by a paintball gun while on her delivery route. Appellant related that 

she believed the gun was real and that she was going to die, which lead to a recurrence of PTSD. 

Dr. Abbott held appellant off work.

A November 12, 2020 note from Dr. Abbott recounted the details of the October 30, 2020 

employment incident and reiterated that appellant suffered from PTSD due to a prior incident 

involving a gun. Dr. Abbott diagnosed acute stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and 

major depressive disorder. She continued to hold appellant off work.

In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated November 13, 2020, Dr. Abbott described the 

October 30, 2020 incident involving appellant being shot at repeatedly and fearing for her life. 

She diagnosed severe depression, anxiety, and acute stress disorder.

In a letter dated December 2, 2020, Dr. Abbott noted that she began treating appellant 

weekly beginning on November 4, 2020. She recounted the details of the October 30, 2020 

incident and again noted diagnoses of acute stress disorder, major depressive disorder, moderate, 

recurrent and generalized anxiety disorder. Dr. Abbott noted that appellant’s condition was 

improving and released her to light-duty part-time work beginning December 1, 2022 and fulltime work with restrictions beginning December 15, 2020.

In a December 4, 2020 response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, appellant related 

that on October 30, 2020 someone pulled up in a car and shot her several times with a paintball 

gun, causing her to fall to the ground. She detailed a history of PTSD related to a prior incident 

involving a gun.

By decision dated December 23, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that she had not established that her diagnosed medical condition was causally related to 

the accepted October 30, 2020 employment incident.
3

On August 8, 2021 appellant timely requested reconsideration of OWCP’s December 23, 

2020 decision and provided a duplicate copy of the October 30, 2020 police report previously of 

record.

By decision dated August 26, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration

of the merits of the 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.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

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.4 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.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

2

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).

3

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).

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 (February 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). Chapter 2.1602.4b.

5

Id. at § 10.608(a); D.G., supra note 2; F.V., Docket No. 18-0230 (issued May 8, 2020); see also M.S., 59 ECAB 

231 (2007)

6

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).
4

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 August 8, 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. Consequently, appellant 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).7

Appellant has not provided relevant and pertinent new evidence in support of her request 

for reconsideration. In support of her request, she resubmitted copy of an October 30, 2020 police 

report previously of record. The Board has held that the submission of evidence or argument 

which repeats or duplicates evidence or argument already in the case record does not constitute a 

basis for reopening a case and, thus, these reports are also insufficient to warrant a merit review.

8

 

As appellant did not provide relevant and pertinent new evidence, she is not entitled to a merit 

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

Appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of 

law, advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP, or submit relevant 

and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by OWCP. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.608(b), OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of the 

claim.

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).

7

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).

8

Id.; D.M., Docket No. 18-1003 (issued July 16, 2020); L.C., Docket No. 19-0503 (issued February 7, 2020); A.A., 

Docket No. 18-0031 (issued April5, 2018); EugeneF. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 26, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 28, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board