United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.H., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI VA MEDICAL 

CENTER, Milwaukee, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0364

Issued: May 13, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Whitney Gage, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On January 8, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 23, 2020 

nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-0364.

On May 1, 2019 appellant, then a 51-year-old contracting officer, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed a stress-related illness due to factors of her 

federal employment, including working on contracts, general heavy workloads, and conflicts with 

her supervisor. She noted that she first became aware of her condition and its relation to her f ederal 

employment on March 18, 2019. Appellant stopped work on March 18, 2019 and returned on 

April 1, 2019. 

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

In a development letter dated May 15, 2019, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical 

evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for her completion. In a separate development letter 

of even date, OWCPrequested additional information from the employing establishment including 

comments from a knowledgeable supervisor as well as witness statements or corroborating 

documents. It afforded both parties 30 days to respond. No response was received.

By decision dated July 2, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that the alleged factors of her federal employment had not been established. Specifically, 

it explained that she had only provided vague and general information regarding her claim without 

supporting evidence or specific examples. OWCP, therefore, concluded that the requirements had 

not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

In a letter dated June 30, 2020, received on July 2, 2020, appellant responded to OWCP’s 

development questionnaire. She clarified that she had a stress-related condition, which involved 

both physical and mental symptoms. Appellant noted that when she was promoted to a contracting 

officer, she had no assistant and was given sole responsibility over a nursing home and adult day 

health care. She indicated that no other contracting officer had such a heavy workload and that 

she had to perform full-time duties as a receptionist in addition to her regular job duties. Appellant 

reported that she was exposed to a stressful, hostile work environment in which she regularly 

worked 50- to 60-hour workweeks. She alleged that on September 29, 2017 her supervisor 

directed her to sign procurement documents obligating government funds, then subsequently 

advised her that the documents should not have been signed. Appellant asserted tha t after being 

promoted on March 18, 2018, she was assigned different duties than other individuals were not 

expected to perform. She noted that on many occasions, P.B., her supervisor, spoke to her in an 

aggressive and disrespectfulmanner. Appellant alleged that P.B. assigned her extra work and gave 

her negative evaluations if the work was not completed. She indicated that she filed a formal 

complaint and requested a transfer, which was denied. Appellant reported feeling consistently 

humiliated, belittled, and overworked because of P.B.’s actions toward her. She advised that the 

director of the employing establishment suspended her in September 2019 because she had not 

been performing her work. Appellant asserted that she provided the director with a spreadsheet 

and signed documentation, showing that she had in fact been completing her work. She reported 

that the director refused to rescind her suspension. Appellant noted that she had filed Equal 

Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints, U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) complaints, 

and multiple union grievances. She indicated that she had no stress outside her federal employment 

and first became aware of her condition on March 6, 2019. Appellant described physical 

symptoms of neuropathy, pain and pressure in her head, shingles and rashes on her head, scalp, 

and neck, impaired hearing, pain in her eyes, ears, throat, neck, and jaw, paresthesia, bruxism, 

trembling in her jaw, disrupted breathing, insomnia, exhaustion, fatigue, tremulousness, 

tachycardia, weight gain, overeating, anorexia, and nausea. She also described mental symptoms 

of inability to take action, low motivation, difficulty focusing, irritability, nervousness, panic, 

avoidance, confusion, loss of interest, increased anxiety and depression, extreme stress, 

hopelessness, and inability to complete housework. Appellant indicated that her symptoms were 

exacerbated by stress, deadlines, interpersonal interactions, and financial concerns.

On July 3, 2020 appellant formally requested reconsideration and submitted additional 

factual and medical evidence.
3

By decision dated July 23, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration, 

finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, finds that OWCP improperly determined 

that appellant’s request for reconsideration was untimely filed.

The case record contains a June 30, 2020 letter, received by OWCP on July 2, 2020, in 

which appellant specifically addressed the deficiencies noted in OWCP’s July 2, 2019 decision. 

She also submitted additional factual and medical evidence.

Although appellant’s June 30, 2020 letter does not mention the word reconsideration, the 

Board has found that there may be a request for reconsideration in situations where a letter does 

not contain the word reconsideration.2 No special form is required as long as the request is made 

in writing, identifies the decision and specific issue to be considered, and is accompanied by 

relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered. 3 The word reconsideration does 

not need to be stated in the request for it to be considered valid, but sufficient detail should be 

provided to discern the decision being contested.4

Appellant explicitly responded to the deficiencies in her claim as noted in OWCP’s July 2, 

2019 decision. In this regard, she clarified that she had a stress-related condition, which involved 

both physical and mental symptoms. Appellant described several instances in which, following 

her promotion to a contract specialist, she had no assistant and was performing different duties that 

no one else in that capacity was required to perform. Additionally, she described being ridiculed, 

working in a hostile environment, and receiving less than satisfactory performance appraisals due 

to her inability to timely perform the different duties. Appellant also described the toll that her 

working environment had taken on her physically. Thus, the Board finds that her June 30, 2020 

letter, received by OWCP on July 2, 2020, which was followed by the submission of medical 

evidence, constituted a timely request for reconsideration.5

As appellant filed a request for reconsideration within one year of the July 2, 2019 OWCP 

decision, the Board finds that OWCP improperly denied her reconsideration request by applying 

the legal standard for cases where reconsideration is requested after more than one year has 

elapsed. OWCP should have applied the standard reserved for timely reconsideration requests as 

set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).6 Since it erroneously reviewed the evidence submitted in 

2 M.W., Docket No. 21-0841 (issued October 26, 2021); P.S., Docket No. 20-1192 (issued July20, 2021); E.S., 

Docket No. 17-0698 (issued July 14, 2017); Jack D. Johnson, 57 ECAB 593 (2006); VicenteP. Taimanglo, 45 ECAB 

504 (1994).

3

Id.

4

Id.;see also M.H., Docket No. 14-1389 (issued October 22, 2014).

5

See supra note 2; see also C.M., Docket No. 11-1988 (issued June 6, 2012).

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3) of OWCP’s regulations provide that a request reconsideration must be in writing and set 

forth arguments and contain evidence that either: (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.
4

support of appellant’s reconsideration request under the more stringent clear evidence of error 

standard, the Board will remand the case for review of this evidence under the proper standard of 

review for a timely reconsideration request.7 Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 23, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this order of the Board.

Issued: May 13, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

7

Supra note 2.