United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Kewaskum, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0678

Issued: January 10, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 29, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 24, 2020 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 3, 2019, 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).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 12, 2019 appellant, then a 56-year-old rural carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed an emotional condition due to factors of her federal 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

employment, including harassment and retaliation by managers and coworkers. She related that 

following an incident where she was physically assaulted by her coworker on April 29, 2019 she 

began having episodes of extreme anxiety, panic attacks, fatigue, and insomnia, among other 

issues, until she was completely incapacitated on May 1, 2019. Appellant asserted that she was 

subsequently harassed by S.R., her postmaster, who had not responded to her pleas for help and 

retaliated against her after she reported the April 29, 2019 incident to the police and the Office of 

the Inspector General (OIG). She noted that she first became aware of her condition and realized 

its relation to her federal employment on February 25, 2019. Appellant stopped work on 

February 25, 2019 and returned to work on March 1, 2019.

In a development letter dated June 24, 2019, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to establish her 

claim and provided a questionnaire for her completion. In a separate development of even date, 

OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide additional information regarding 

appellant’s alleged injury, including comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding the 

accuracy of her allegations and an explanation of any areas of disagreement. It afforded both 

parties 30 days to submit the requested evidence. 

Appellant subsequently submitted narrative statements further detailing the allegations 

made with regard to her emotional condition claim. She also submitted additional evidence 

including, police reports, United States Postal Inspection Service investigation reports, medical 

reports, grievance forms, and witness statements. 

OWCP also received a July 1, 2019 letter from the employing establishment controverting 

appellant’s claim. 

By decision dated October 3, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim, 

finding that she had not established any compensable employment factors.

Appellant subsequently submitted an October 3, 2019 report in which Dr. Jim Giese, a 

Board-certified psychologist, diagnosed a generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder 

and post-traumatic stress disorder. Dr. Giese opined that the April 2019 employment incident and 

her management’s failure to quickly address the situation aggravated her condition and ultimately 

led to the development of her diagnosed conditions.

On September 25, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s October 3, 2019 

decision. 

In an August 12, 2020 medical note, Dr. Manila Sodhi, Board-certified in internal 

medicine, indicated that she had been treating appellant for her worsening depression and anxiety.

By decision dated November 24, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

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

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. 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 be received by OWCP within one year of the date of 

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.4 If it 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

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 did not establish that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point 

of law, or advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. Accordingly, 

the Board finds that appellant is not entitled to a review of the merits based on either the first or 

second requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).7

On reconsideration, appellant submitted additional medical evidence, including an 

October 3, 2019 report from Dr. Giese and an August 12, 2020 note from Dr. Sodhi. While this 

medical evidence is new, it is not relevant because it does not directly address the underlying issue 

2

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see L.D.,Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 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).

3

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see L.D., id.;see also L.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 the merit 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). Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4b.

5

Id. at § 10.608(a); see also M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

6

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

7

Supra note 3.
4

of the present case which is factual in nature, i.e., whether appellant submitted sufficient factual 

evidence, with adequate supporting documentation, to establish a compensable employment 

factor. The submission of this medical evidence does not warrant a review of appellant’s claim on 

the merits because the Board has held that the submission of evidence or argument which does not 

address the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case. 8 Therefore, 

appellant also failed to satisfy the third requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).

The Board, accordingly, finds that appellant has not met 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.

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 November 24, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 10, 2023

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

8 T.G., Docket No. 20-0329 (issued October 19, 2020); M.K.,Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April10, 2019); Edward 

Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224, 225 (1979).