United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Nashville, TN, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0765

Issued: February 10, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 7, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from December 21, 2020 and March 5, 

2021 merit decisions as well as a March 8, 2021 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of the 

case.2

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notesthat, following the March 8, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, the 

Board’s Rules of Procedure 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. Id.
2

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish disability 

from work on October 15, 2020 causally related to her accepted August 19, 2020 employment 

injury; (2) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to expand the acceptance of the claim to 

include a head injury causally related to the accepted August 19, 2020 employment injury; and 

(3) 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 August 19, 2020 appellant, then a 52-year-old mail processing clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on that day, she sustained an abrasion and scratch to her 

right knee when she fell walking to a stacking machine while in the performance of duty. OWCP 

accepted the claim for patellar tendinitis, right knee, and trochanteric bursitis, right hip, noting that 

her healthcare provider requested that appellant be further evaluated for a head injury related to 

her accepted work event.

In a letter dated October 16, 2020, Dr. Daniel McGee, an osteopath specializing in family 

medicine, related that on August 19, 2020 appellant fell at work and hit her head. He stated that 

she required a computerized tomography (CT) scan and follow-up appointmentwith a neurologist.

OWCP received a CT scan of appellant’s head dated October 16, 2020 from Dr. Kevin 

Cunneely, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist. Dr. Cunneely related that appellant had a 

normal CT examination.

By decision dated December 21, 2020, OWCP found that appellant had not met her burden 

of proof to expand the acceptance of her claim to include a diagnosed head injury causally related 

to the accepted August 19, 2020 employment injury.

Appellant submitted a medical report dated December 30, 2020 from Dr. Damon H. Petty, 

a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, which listed appellant’s diagnoses of greater trochanteric 

bursitis, right hip and patellar tendinitis, right knee.

On January 25, 2021 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability 

from work on October 15, 2020. She noted that on that day she had used eight hours of leave 

without pay due to right knee pain.

In a development letter dated February 1, 2021, OWCP informed appellant that it had not 

received any evidence to support her claim for wage-loss compensation on October 15, 2020. It 

advised her of the type of medical evidence necessary to establish her claim and afforded her 30 

days to submit the requested medical evidence.

On February 22, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s December 21, 2020 

decision denying expansion of the acceptance of her claim.

On March 1, 2021 OWCP received a Leave Year 2020 Absence Analysis, which indicated 

that appellant had taken leave without pay on October 15, 2020.
3

By decision dated March 5, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation for 

disability from work on October 15, 2020. It found that the medical evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish that she was disabled from work causally related to her August 19, 2020 

employment injury. 

By decision dated March 8, 2021, OWCP denied reconsideration of its December 21, 2020 

decision denying the expansion of the acceptance of appellant’s claim to include a head injury.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim including that any disability or specific condition for which 

compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury. 4 For each period of 

disability claimed, the employee has the burden of proof to establish that he or she was disabled 

from work as a result of the accepted employment injury.5 Whether a particular injury causes an 

employee to become disabled from work, and the duration of that disability, are medical issues 

that must be proven by a preponderance of probative and reliable medical opinion evidence.6

Under FECA, the term disability means an incapacity because of an employment injury, to 

earn the wages the employee was receiving at the time of the injury.7 When, however, the medical 

evidence establishes that the residuals or sequelae of an employment injury are such that, from a 

medical standpoint, prevent the employee from continuing in his or her employment, he or she is 

entitled to compensation for any loss of wages.8

To establish causal relationship between the disability claimed and the employment injury, 

an employee must submit rationalized medical evidence, based on a complete factual and medical 

background, supporting such causal relationship.9 The opinion of the physician must be one of 

reasonable medical certainty and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of 

3

See supra note 1.

4

See D.S.,Docket No. 20-0638 (issued November 17, 2020); F.H.,Docket No. 18-0160 (issued August23, 2019); 

C.R., Docket No. 18-1805 (issued May 10, 2019); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143 (1989).

5

Id.; Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001).

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); J.M., Docket No. 18-0763 (issued April29, 2020).

7

Supra note 5. 

8

Id.

9

See S.J.,Docket No. 17-0828 (issued December 20, 2017); KathrynE. DeMarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005).
4

the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors identified 

by the employee.10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish disability from 

work on October 15, 2020 causally related to her accepted August 19, 2020 employment injury. 

OWCP, in its February 1, 2021 development letter, notified appellant of the type of medical 

evidence to establish that she was disabled from work on the date claimed as a result of the 

accepted employment injury. However, no medical evidence was received pertaining to this 

disability claim prior to OWCP’s March 5, 2021 decision. 

For each period of disability claimed, the employee has the burden of proof to establish 

that he or she was disabled from work during the claimed period as a result of the acce pted 

employment injury.11 Because appellant has not submitted rationalized medical opinion evidence 

sufficient to establish employment-related disability on the date claimed due to her accepted 

employment injury, the Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof to establish her claim.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

When an employee claims that a condition not accepted or approved by OWCP was due to 

an employment injury, he or she bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition is causally 

related to the employment injury.12 The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship 

between a specific condition and the employment injury is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 

The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the 

claimant, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale 

explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific 

employment incident identified by the claimant.13

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to expand the acceptance 

of the claim to include a head injury causally related to the accepted August 19, 2020 employment 

injury. 

OWCP received a CT scan report of appellant’s head dated October 16, 2020 from

Dr. Cunneely. Dr. Cunneely reported normal findings. It is appellant’s burden of proof to obtain 

10 C.B., Docket No. 18-0633 (issued November 16, 2018); LeslieC. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); GaryL. Fowler,

45 ECAB 365 (1994).

11 Supra note 4.

12 J.R., Docket No. 20-0292 (issued June 26, 2020); W.L., Docket No. 17-1965 (issued September 12, 2018); V.B., 

Docket No. 12-0599 (issued October 2, 2012); JajaK. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200, 204 (2004).

13 See E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 2010).
5

and submit medical documentation containing a firm diagnosis causally related to the accepted 

employment injury.

14

 As this report did not provide a firm diagnosis of a head injury causally 

related to the accepted employment injury, it is insufficient to establish causal relationship.15

In an October 16, 2020 letter, Dr. McGee related that on August 19, 2020 appellant fell at 

work and hit her head. However, this document did not specifically provide a physician’s 

diagnosis of appellant’s condition. The Board has held that a medical report is of no probative 

value if it does not provide a firm diagnosis of a particular medical condition, or offer a specific 

opinion as to whether the accepted employment incident caused or aggravated the claimed 

condition.16

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish a diagnosed head condition 

causally related to the accepted August 19, 2020 employment injury, the Board finds that appellant 

has not met her burden of proof. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 3

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. 17

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.18

14 J.P., Docket No. 20-0381 (issued July 28, 2020); R.L.,Docket No. 20-0284 (issued June 30, 2020).

15 See J.C.,Docket No. 20-1509 (issued May 25, 2021). 

16 L.E., Docket No. 19-0470 (issued August 12, 2019); M.J., Docket No. 18-1114 (issued February 5, 2019).

17 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).

18 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).
6

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.19 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

and reviews the case on its merits.20 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.21

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 3

OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

In her February 22, 2021 request for reconsideration of OWCP’s December 21, 2020 

decision denying expansion of the acceptance of her claim to include a head injury, appellant did

not allege or demonstrate that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law. 

Moreover, she has not advanced a relevant legal argument not previously considered. 

Consequently, appellant is not entitled to a 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).22

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

evidence not previously considered. Although evidence submitted on reconsideration need not 

carry appellant’s burden entirely to warrant reopening the claim for merit review, the new evidence 

must at least be relevant and pertinent to the issue(s) of the contested decision of OWCP.23 

Appellant submitted a medical report dated December 30, 2020 from Dr. Petty; however, this 

report did not provide a diagnosis of a head injury. This report, therefore, did not constitute 

relevant and pertinent new evidence regarding the underlying issue of whether appellant sustained 

a head injury causally related to the accepted employment injury.24 As appellant did not provide 

relevant and pertinent new evidence, she is not entitled to a merit review based on the third 

requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).25

19 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 (February2016). 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). Chapter 2.1602.4b.

20 Id. at § 10.608(a); see also A.F., Docket No. 19-1832 (issued July 21, 2020); M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

21 Id. at § 10.608(b); J.B., Docket No. 20-0145 (issued September 8, 2020); Y.K., Docket No. 18-1167 (issued 

April 2, 2020); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued March18, 2010).

22 C.B., Docket No. 18-1108(issued January 22, 2019).

23 See M.J.,Docket No. 19-1979 (issued August12, 2020); R.R., Docket No. 18-1562 (issued February 22, 2019).

24 P.C., Docket No. 18-1703 (issued March 22, 2019).

25 See T.W., Docket No. 18-0821 (issued January 13, 2020).
7

The Board, accordingly, finds that appellant did not meet 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.26

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish disability from 

work on October 15, 2020 causally related to her accepted August 19, 2020 employment injury.

The Board also finds that OWCP properly determined that she has not met her burden of proof to 

expand the acceptance of the claim to include a head injury causally related to the accepted 

August 19, 2020 employment injury. The Board further 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 December 21, 2020, and March 5 and 8, 2021 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: February 10, 2022

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

26 J.B., supra note 21; D.G., Docket No. 19-1348 (issued December 2, 2019).