United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CONCORD ANNEX 

POST OFFICE, Concord, NH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0835

Issued: December 19, 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

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 28, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 29, 2022 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated September 1, 2021, 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.

2

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the November 29, 2022 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to 

OWCP. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedures provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence 

in the case record that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be 

considered by the Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from 

reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. 
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 May 28, 2021 appellant, then a 64-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed arthritis in his right hand due to factors of his federal 

employment, including repetitive grasping and squeezing mail. He noted that he first became 

aware of his condition, and first realized its relation to his federal employment on August 3, 2020. 

Appellant stopped work on January 6, 2021 and retired on February 1, 2021. 

In a report dated April 30, 2021, Dr. John J. Walsh, Jr., a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, indicated that appellant was evaluated for complaints of pain and difficulty pinching or 

grasping with the right hand. He reported right hand physical examination findings of prominent 

subluxation of the base of the thumb metacarpal, with grinding and localizing pain over the 

trapeziometacarpal joint. Dr. Walsh also noted early Heberden’s nodes involving the distal 

interphalangeal joints of all fingers, and tenderness and first form swelling of the proximal 

interphalangeal joints. He diagnosed bilateral trapeziometacarpal degenerative joint disease. 

Dr. Walsh explained that evidence supported the role of occupational factors involving repetitive 

thumb use as putting repetitive stress on the metacarpal joint of the thumb. He reported that 

appellant had no history or hobbies, which could have contributed to right hand arthritis.

Dr. Walsh opined that “the repetitive occupational injuries[,] which occurred in the workplace as 

the direct result of [appellant’s] employment activities, contributed to the development and 

progression of the ... trapeziometacarpal joint degenerative arthritis in appellant’s right [t]humb.” 

In a statement dated May 28, 2021, appellant described that he had worked as a letter 

carrier, casing, and delivering routes, since 1984. He estimated that he cased between 10 and 24 

feet of mail every day, about 3 to 4 trays of delivery point sequence mail daily, and 6 tubs of 

magazines and newspapers. Appellant explained that, in summer 2020, he began to feel persistent 

soreness in his right hand while casing and delivering his route, and he could tell that it was from 

grasping and squeezing mail. 

In a June 25, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of his 

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

and provided a questionnaire for his completion. In a separate letter of the same date, OWCP also 

requested additional information from the employing establishment. It afforded both parties 30 

days to submit the necessary information. 

In a correspondence dated July 6, 2021, appellant responded to OWCP’s development 

letter. He noted that he received medical treatment on March 29, 2021. Appellant explained that 

he tested negative for carpal tunnel syndrome, but x-ray scans revealed degenerative arthritis in 

the joint at the base of the thumb near the wrist. He indicated that he frequently wore a soft wrist 

brace. Appellant noted that he was enclosing pages from Dr. Walsh’s report regarding a statement 

in support of causal relationship. He provided quotations from Dr. Walsh’s report and alleged that 

the causation statement seemed to have answered OWCP’s questions. Appellant explained that 
3

he liked to play tennis, walk, ride his bicycle, take short hikes, and do some cardio and aerobics. 

He indicated that his hobbies and activities were performed occasionally, but work and overtime 

dominated his life. 

OWCP received a city carrier position description along with an unsigned and undated 

statement responding to questions in OWCP’s development letter from the employing 

establishment. The employing establishment indicated that it was first aware of appellant’s 

symptoms on May 28, 2021 and that he never mentioned soreness in his hand. It described his

employment duties and his work environment. 

Appellant submitted additional medical evidence. In a report dated March 29, 2021,

Dr. Lance Klingler, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, recounted that appellant had recently 

retired after working as a letter carrier for many years. On physical examination of appellant’s 

right hand, he observed mild dorsal subluxation to his right thumb and tenderness with palpation 

to the right thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) with mild crepitus. Dr. Klingler diagnosed right thumb 

CMC degenerative joint disease. 

In a letter dated July 27, 2021, appellant indicated that he was uploading a short concise 

statement from Dr. Walsh reiterating what he had stated in his 9-page causation report. In an 

undated statement, Dr. Walsh opined that “‘casing’ mail is the direct cause of the ‘end stage’

degeneration of the trapeziometacarpal joint at the base of his thumbs.” 

By decision dated September 1, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that his diagnosed 

right-hand condition was causally related to the accepted factors of employment. Therefore, the 

requirements had not been met to establish an injury or condition due to the accepted employment 

factors. 

On August 31, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration. He asserted that OWCP 

erroneously dismissedDr. Walsh’s report and cited to his credentials. Appellant also reported that

Dr. Walsh’s statement about him having no history or hobbies, which could have contributed to 

his condition did not conflict with his factual history. He alleged that OWCP should not have 

relied on the employing establishment’s statement and noted specific disagreements with postal 

management. Appellant explained that he performed more pincer grasp motions in a single 

morning at work than he did while playing softball. He also indicated that he waited to report his 

injury because he thought that the pain would subside after retirement and, it was difficult to obtain 

a medical appointment. Appellant reiterated that his right-hand arthritis was causally related to 

his employment duties. He also submitted a compact disc (CD) containing x-ray films.

By decision dated November 29, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration of the merits of the claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 
4

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 or her own motion or on application.3

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.4

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.5 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

and reviews the case on its merits.6 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.7 

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 reconsideration request, appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law, nor did he advance a new and relevant legal argument not 

previously considered. He provided points of disagreement with the employing establishment’s 

statement and reiterated that Dr. Walsh provided a well-rationalized opinion establishing causal 

relationship. None of these assertions, however, offer a new and relevant legal argument nor show 

that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law. Consequently, appellant 

3

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see A.N., Docket No. 20-1487 (issued March 19, 2021); L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued 

February11, 2019); see also D.L., Docket No. 09-1549 (issued February 23, 2010); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see S.K., Docket No. 22-0248 (issued June 27, 2022); see also L.G.,Docket No. 09-

1517 (issued March 3, 2010); C.N., Docket No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008).

5

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.

6

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

7

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

was not entitled to a review of the merits based on the first and second above-noted requirements 

under 20 C.F.R 10.606(b)(3).8

Appellant submitted a CD containing x-rays. Diagnostic tests, standing alone, lack 

probative value as they do not provide a physician’s opinion on whether there is a causal 

relationship between appellant’s accepted employment incident/exposure and a diagnosed 

condition.9 Consequently, this evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

Therefore, appellant was not entitled to a review of the merits based on the third abovenoted requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).10

Accordingly, the Board finds that appellant has not met any of the requirements 

enumerated under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly 

denied his request for reconsideration without reopening the case for review on the merits. 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). 

8

Supra note 4; see K.F., Docket No. 19-1846 (issued November 3, 2020).

9

See P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); A.P., Docket No. 18-1690 (issued December 12, 2019); 

R.M., Docket No. 18-0976 (issued January 3, 2019).

10 Supra note 4; P.W., Docket No. 20-0380 (issued November 23, 2020); M.O., Docket No. 19-1677 (issued 

February 25, 2020); C.B., Docket No. 18-1108 (issued January 22, 2019).

11 See D.R., Docket No. 18-0357 (issued July 2, 2018); A.K., Docket No. 09-2032 (issued August 3, 2010); M.E., 

58 ECAB 694 (2007); Susan A. Filkins, 57 ECAB 630 (2006).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 29, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 19, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board