United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CHARLOTTE 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Charlotte, NC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0409

Issued: August 25, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 29, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 3, 2022 nonmerit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 As more than 180 days 

has elapsed from the last merit decision, dated August 12, 2021, to the filing of this appeal, 

pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of this case.

1 Pursuant to the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal is considered filed when received by the Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards. 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f). However, when the date of receipt would result in a loss of appeal rights, 

the appeal will be considered to have been filed as of the date of the U.S. Postal Service postmark or other carriers 

date markings. Id. at § 501.3(f)(1). The 180th day following OWCP’s August 3, 2022 decision was 

January 30, 2023. Because using January 31, 2023, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards, would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the postmark is considered the date of filing. The date 

of the U.S. Postal Service postmark is January 29, 2023, rendering the appeal timely filed. Id.

2

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 21, 2020 appellant, then a 51-year-old mail handler, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome due to 

factors of his federal employment. He indicated that he processed damaged mail and packages. 

Appellant further explained that he had started losing grip strength in both arms while picking up 

tubs of mail and experienced pain in his hands and wrists. He indicated that he first became 

aware of the condition and of its relationship to his federal employment on September 1, 2020. 

In a development letter dated October 6, 2020, OWCP notified appellant of the 

deficiencies in his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and 

provided him with a development questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 

30 days to respond. No response was received.

By decision dated December 10, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish the implicated factors of 

federal employment. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish 

an injury as defined by FECA. 

OWCP received medical evidence indicating diagnoses of bilateral carpal tunnel 

syndrome and left cubital tunnel syndrome. 

On May 12, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of the December 10, 2020 decision. 

In support of his request, he submitted the completed development questionnaire and related the 

repetitive work duties that allegedly caused his bilateral upper extremity conditions. Appellant 

noted that he taped and pieced together mail and packages and wrote addresses on sealing 

envelopes. He also related that he sorted hundreds of letters each day and picked up trays and 

tubs of mail. 

By decision dated August 12, 2021, OWCP modified its December 10, 2020 decision to 

reflect that the employment factors occurred as alleged and that appellant had established 

diagnosed medical conditions. However, the claim remained denied because the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that his bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and left 

cubital tunnel syndrome were causally related to the accepted employment factors. 

On July 25, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration. No additional evidence or 

argument was submitted.

By decision dated August 3, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

of the merits of his claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 
3

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.3 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).4 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.5

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.6 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

and reviews the case on its merits.7 If the 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.8

ANALYSIS

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

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

In his request for reconsideration, appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied 

or interpreted a specific point of law or advance a new and relevant legal argument not 

previously considered by OWCP. Consequently, he is not entitled to further review of the merits

3

Id. at § 8128(a); see T.K., Docket No. 19-1700 (issued April 30, 2020); L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued 

February 11, 2019); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.608(a).

5

Id. at § 10.606(b)(3);see L.D., supra note 3; see also L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 (issued March 3, 2010); C.N., 

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

6

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.

7

Id. at § 10.608(a); see F.V., Docket No. 18-0230 (issued May 8, 2020); M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

8

Id. at § 10.608(b); see B.S., Docket No. 20-0761 (issued January 29, 2021); J.B., Docket No. 20-0145 (issued 

September 8, 2020); Y.K., Docket No. 18-1167 (issued April 2, 2020).
4

of his claim based on the first and second above-noted requirements under 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3).9

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

evidence not previously considered by OWCP. Therefore, appellant is not entitled to further 

review of the merits of his claim based on the third above-noted requirement under 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3).10

The Board, accordingly, finds that appellant has not met any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to id. at. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.11

CONCLUSION

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

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 3, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 25, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

9

Id. at § 10.606(b)(3);see T.F., Docket No. 22-0573 (issued March 31, 2023); A.N., Docket No. 22-0617 (issued 

August 26, 2022); L.D., supra note 3; see also L.G., and C.N., supra note 5.

10 See T.F. and A.N., id.; Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984).

11 T.F. and A.N., id.; D.G., Docket No. 19-1348 (issued December 2, 2019).