United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Green River, WY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0553

Issued: October 21, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 3, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 7, 2021 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated October 14, 2020, 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.

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board on a different issue.

2

 The facts and 

circumstances as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The 

relevant facts are as follows.

On July 25, 2008 appellant, then a 49-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury (Form 

CA-1) alleging that on July 21, 2008 she sustained injuries to the right side of her right foot when 

stepping out of her work vehicle and avoiding a broken bottle on the ground while in the 

performance of duty. She stopped work on July 25, 2008 and returned on August 1, 2008. OWCP 

accepted appellant’s claim for right foot sprain and ruptured ligament and right foot tendinitis. 

Appellant worked intermittently and OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the 

supplemental rolls for intermittent periods of disability. On January 12, 2013 appellant stopped 

work again. OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls, effective 

January 22, 2013, and placed her on the periodic rolls, effective April 7, 2013. 

By decision dated March 21, 2013, OWCP expanded the acceptance of appellant’s claim 

to include right ankle peroneal tendon tear. 

By decision dated August 7, 2014, OWCP again expanded the acceptance of appellant’s 

claim to include complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) of the right lower limb. 

On January 31, 2020 OWCP received a November 19, 2019 letter by Dr. Charles Saltzman, 

a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who indicated that appellant had been under his care for 

several years due to a right ankle injury and subsequent development of CRPS. Dr. Saltzman

provided examination findings and noted that appellant had reached maximum medical 

improvement(MMI). He opined that appellant had 100 percent permanent impairment of the right 

lower extremity. 

By decision dated February 21, 2020, OWCP expanded the acceptance of appellant’s claim 

to include right ankle sprain, right ankle tibiofibular ligament sprain, spontaneous rupture of the 

flexor tendons of the right ankle and foot, right ankle short Achilles tendon, right tibialis tendinitis, 

right causalgia of the lower limb, right ankle synovitis and tenosynovitis, and right ankle 

instability. 

In a report dated February 27, 2020, Dr. Arthur S. Harris, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon and OWCP district medical adviser (DMA), opined that there was insufficient information 

within the case file to determine whether appellant had a permanent impairment under the sixth 

edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment 

(A.M.A., Guides).3

OWCP subsequently referred appellant to Dr. Terry A. Brown, a Board-certified internist,

for a second opinion examination to determine the extent of employment-related permanent 

2 Docket No. 18-1427 (issued July 29, 2019).

3 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2009).
3

impairment of the right lower extremity in accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. 

In a report dated August 18, 2020, Dr. Brown noted his review of the SOAF and the medical 

record. He indicated that appellant continued to complain of burning, stabbing pain and swelling 

sensation in her right foot. On physical examination of appellant’s right ankle, Dr. Brown 

observed tenderness to palpation and hypersensitivity. Range of motion was limited. Dr. Brown 

referred to the A.M.A., Guides and utilized the diagnosis-based impairment (DBI) rating method 

to find that, under Table 16-15 (Complex Regional Pain Syndrome -- Lower Extremity 

Impairments), page 541, appellant had a class 2 impairment for the class of diagnosis (CDX) of

CRPS, which resulted in a default value of 20 percent, based on objective criteria points greater 

than six points. After applying the net adjustment formula, he determined that appellant had no 

adjustment and concluded that appellant had 20 percent permanent impairment of the right lower 

extremity due to her accepted CRPS condition. 

In a September 3, 2020 report, the DMA, Dr. Harris, noted his review of the SOAF and the 

medical record. He concurred with Dr. Brown’s impairment rating of 20 percent permanent 

impairment of the right lower extremity. 

By decision dated October 14, 2020, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 20 

percent permanent impairment of the right lower extremity. The award ran for 57.6 weeks from 

September 1, 2015 through October 8, 2016. 

Appellant subsequently submitted additional medical evidence. In a letter dated 

November 11, 2020, Dr. Saltzman indicated that appellant’s impairment consisted of right lower 

extremity CRPS, recurrent right lower extremity spasticity, autonomic dysfunction, dysesthesias, 

hyperesthesia, chronic pain, and decreased function. He opined that appellant should be 

considered permanently medically disabled. 

In progress notes dated November 18, 2020 through March 3, 2021, Dr. Carina M. 

Jackman, a Board-certified anesthesiology and pain management specialist, noted appellant’s 

complaints of right foot pain beginning in 2008. On initial examination of appellant’s right lower 

extremity, she observed slight mottling on the surface of appellant’s foot, temperature changes, 

and poor range of motion. Dr. Jackman diagnosed chronic pain syndrome. She reported that 

appellant also had a documented diagnosis of CRPS, likely type two, due to her right foot injury 

and subsequent surgeries. Dr. Jackman also provided lumbar block procedure notes dated 

January 12 through March 3, 2021. 

OWCP received diagnostic imaging reports for appellant’s lumbar and thoracic areas of 

the spine. 

On September 21, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. She noted the July 21, 2008 

employment injury and indicated that, after the eighth surgery, she was left with permanent CRPS 

and severe nerve damage in her right foot and ankle. Appellant reported that her whole foot was 

hypersensitive to touch of any kind and that she was unable to wear socks or shoes due to pain. 

She explained how she had to adjust how she walked or stood to perform daily activities such as 

getting out of bed, grocery shopping, and driving and that she could no longer enjoy certain 

activities because of the constant pain in her right ankle and foot. 
4

In a letter dated March 26, 2021, Dr. Jackman indicated that appellant had a history of 

long-standing right foot pain, which had resulted in functional impairments. She reported that 

appellant had tried all usual treatments for CRPS without any meaningful pain relief. Dr. Jackman 

opined that appellant qualified for a pain evaluation for a disability rating. 

By decision dated October 7, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

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

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 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 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.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 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.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).

4

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February11, 2019); see also V.P., Docket No. 17-1287 

(issued October 10, 2017); D.L., Docket No. 09-1549 (issued February 23, 2010); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see P.M., Docket No. 20-0780 (issued November 24, 2020); J.W., Docket No. 19-1795 

(issued March 13, 2010); 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 alsoM.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

8

Id. at § 10.608(b); E.R.,Docket No. 09-1655 (issued March 18, 2010).
5

Preliminarily, the Board finds that OWCP did not receive additional evidence of permanent 

impairment with appellant’s request for reconsideration received on September 21, 2021. The 

Board will, therefore, consider this a reconsideration request as opposed to a claim for an additional 

schedule award.9

In support of her reconsideration request, appellant discussed her injury and how the 

constant pain in her right foot affected her activities of daily living. However, these arguments 

were duplicative of arguments previously of record and, therefore, do not constitute a basis for 

reopening the case.10 Consequently, appellant is not entitled to further 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).11

Appellant also submitted letters and reports by Dr. Jackman dated November 18, 2020 

through March 26, 2021, which noted diagnoses of chronic pain syndrome and CRPS. She also 

requested a pain evaluation in order to determine disability rating. However, as Dr. Jackman did 

not proffer an impairment rating based upon the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, the Board 

finds that this evidence is irrelevant to the underlying issue of whether appellant has established 

greater than 20 percent permanent impairment of the right lower extremity. 12 Likewise,

Dr. Saltzman’s November 11, 2020 letter also failed to address the issue of permanent impairment. 

The Board has held that the submission of evidence that does not address the particular issue 

involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.13 As such, appellant is not entitled to 

further review of the merits of her claim based on the third above-noted requirement under 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).14

The Board finds, therefore, that OWCP properly determined that appellant was not entitled 

to further review of the merits of her claim pursuant to any of the three requirements under 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.

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).

9

See C.S., Docket No. 19-0851 (issued November 18, 2019); P.D., Docket No. 18-0962 (issued 

September 18, 2019).

10 See F.H., Docket No. 20-0309 (issued January 26, 2021); C.M., Docket No. 19-1610 (issued October 27, 2020); 

Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393 (1984).

11 Supra note 5 at § 10.606(b)(3).

12 See L.W., Docket No. 21-0942 (issued May 11, 2022); JacquelineM. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

13 T.T., Docket No. 19-0319 (issued October 26, 2020); Alan G. Williams, 52 ECAB 180 (2000); Jacqueline M. 

Nixon-Steward, id.; Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224 (1979).

14 Supra note 11.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 7, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 21, 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