United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

NORTHPORT VA MEDICAL CENTER,

Northport, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0263

Issued: October 13, 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

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 10, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from June 22, July 8, and

October 14, 2021 merit decisions and a December 6, 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

this case.

2

ISSUES

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

injury in the performance of duty on October 29, 2020, as alleged; and (2) whether OWCP 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the December 6, 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

properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 7, 2021 appellant, then a 42-year-old housekeeping aid, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on October 29, 2020 she sustained a right wrist and hand injury

when grabbing garbage and linen and hitting her hand against a dumpster while in the performance 

of duty. She stopped work on April 23, 2021. 

Appellant submitted duty status reports (Form CA-17) dated October 27 and 29, 2020

which provided the date of injury as October 27, 2020 and indicated that she injured her hand and 

wrist when grabbing garbage and linen as part of her official duties.

On May 13, 2021 the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim, contending

that she had not provided any evidence to substantiate her traumatic injury claim.

A security prescription form dated May 17, 2021 from an unidentifiable health care 

provider indicated that appellant received surgery for a right wrist cyst on April 26, 2021.

In a development letter dated May 18, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence required and provided a 

questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence. 

OWCP subsequently received an emergency department report dated October 27, 2020,

wherein Dr. Albert W. Heuser, III, Board-certified in emergency medicine, evaluated appellant for 

right wrist pain that had occurred after she grabbed a bag from a garbage pail. He noted that an 

x-ray of the right wrist yielded normal findings. Dr. Heuser diagnosed right wrist pain after 

grasping and lifting a garbage bag and a possible right wrist sprain. 

In an October 29, 2020 report, Dr. Yudell Edelstein, a Board-certified radiologist, obtained 

a history of appellant injuring her right wrist and hand on October 27, 2020 grabbing a bag from a 

garbage pail. He advised that x-rays showed a normal right wrist and indicated that she could 

perform light duty.

OWCP received hospital notes dated November 2 through 10, 2020 from various health 

care providers, who related that appellant’s right wrist pain began after she lifted a heavy bag at 

work and that she was unable to use her right hand due to persistent symptoms. 

In a report dated November 4, 2020, Dr. Sergio Lombardo, a Board-certified physiatrist,

provided a history of appellant experiencing a week of right-hand pain that was likely a sprain. 

A November 18, 2020 computerized tomography (CT) scan of appellant’s right wrist 

revealed no acute fractures or aggressive osseous lesion. In a progress report of even date,

Dr. Lombardo indicated that a CT scan revealed a ganglion cyst at the mid-carpal joint.
3

OWCP received hospital notes dated December 2 and 3, 2020, from Dr. Lombardo who 

reiterated earlier findings from appellant’s CT scan and noted that an additionalscan revealed mild 

carpi ulnaris tendinosis. 

In a form report dated April 28, 2021, Dr. Richard Boccio, a Board-certified podiatrist, 

indicated that appellant had a cyst removal on April 26, 2021 and would be unable to return to 

work until June 7, 2021.

In nurse triage reports dated June 2, 2021, Debra Englehardt, a nurse, related that appellant

injured herself in October 2020 and further indicated that appellant received surgery on April 26, 

2021 to remove a cyst that was allegedly related to the workplace incident.

An attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated June 3, 2021 related a date of injury 

of April 26, 2021 and diagnosed a ganglion cyst of the right wrist. 

On June 4, 2021 the employing establishment again controverted appellant’s claim,

contending that appellant had not established a medical condition for her traumatic injury claim.

By decision dated June 22, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she had not 

submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the events occurred in the performance of duty as 

alleged. Consequently, it found that she had not met the requirements to establish an injury as 

defined by FECA.

On June 28, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s June 22, 2021 decision.

She submitted CA-17 forms dated October 29 and November 2, 2020 and a Form CA-17 with an 

illegible date. The November 2, 2020 CA-17 form noted the date of injury as November 2, 2020. 

OWCP subsequently received an illegible statement from appellant dated June 29, 2021.

By decision dated July 8, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its June 22, 2021 decision.

It found that appellant had not submitted a legible factual statement and attached a copy of its 

May 18, 2021 development letter and questionnaire. 

On July 8, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s July 8, 2021 decision. In 

an attached statement of even date, she explained that on October 27, 2020 employee health 

instructed her to go to the emergency department and that her supervisor had excused her absence. 

Appellant further indicated that she continues to seek medical treatment due to her condition.

Appellant resubmitted the October 29, 2020 Form CA-17 which listed appellant’s date of 

injury as October 27, 2020. 

Appellant submitted occupational therapy notes dated June 4 through July 12, 2021 from 

various health care providers, who noted her right wrist pain diagnosis and medical treatment for 

short- and long-term recovery.

In a July 13, 2021 statement, appellant explained that she was in the emergency room due 

to her condition, and that it was recommended that she receive surgery.
4

A July 22, 2021 employing establishment work capacity evaluation form from Dr. Anne 

Marie Meo, a Board-certified orthopedist, indicated that appellant was examined on 

January 15, 2021. 

On August 13, 2021 Dr. Thor Robert Rhodin, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, related 

appellant’s history of right wrist pain on October 27, 2020 when she “hit her wrist on a dumpster

throwing out a garbage bag.” He discussed her ongoing complaints of right wrist pain due to the 

alleged October 27, 2020 workplace incident. Dr. Rhodin diagnosed tenosynovitis of the right 

wrist. 

In a September 16, 2021 medical narrative report, Dr. Rhodin related a date of injury of

October 27, 2020 and noted that appellant had injured her wrist on that date when she hit it on a 

dumpster throwing a bag of garage. He found that she remained unable to repetitively grip or lift 

anything more than a few pounds. Dr. Rhodin additionally diagnosed a damaged wrist capsule

with ligament and tendon scarring. 

By decision dated October 14, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its July 8, 2021 

decision. 

On October 18, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s October 14, 2021 

decision and submitted duplicate copies of Dr. Rhodin’s August 13 and September 16, 2021 

medical reports.

By decision dated December 6, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

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

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 the individual is an employee of the United 

States within the meaning of FECA,4that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation of FECA, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that 

any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the 

employment injury.5 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim, 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease. 6

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There 

3

Supra note 1; D.M., Docket No. 18-1003 (issued July 16, 2020); L.C., Docket No. 19-0503 (issued February 7, 

2020); A.A., Docket No. 18-0031 (issued April 5, 2018); Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984).

4 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued December 13, 2019); 

Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5

J.T., Docket No. 20-0713 (issued July 11, 2022); L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.H., 

Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
5

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component is whether the 

employee actually experienced the employment incident at the time and place, and in the manner 

alleged. The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and 

can be established only by medical evidence.7 

To establish that an injury occurred as alleged, the injury need not be confirmed by 

eyewitnesses, but the employee’s statements must be consistent with the surrounding facts and 

circumstances and his or her subsequent course of action. The employee has not met his or her 

burden when there are such inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt on the validity 

of the claim. Such circumstances as late notification of injury, lack of confirmation of injury, 

continuing to work without apparent difficulty following the alleged injury, and failure to obtain 

medical treatment may, if otherwise unexplained, cast serious doubt on the employee’s statements 

in determining whether a prima facie case has been established.8 An employee’s statement 

alleging that an injury occurred at a given time and in a given manner is of great probative value 

and will stand unless refuted by strong or persuasive evidence. 9

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty on October 29, 2020, as alleged. 

On her May 7, 2021 Form CA-1, appellant alleged that she was injured on 

October 29, 2020. However, the medical evidence of record listed inconsistent dates of injury. 

These inconsistent dates of injury throughout the evidence of record cast serious doubt as to 

whether the alleged employment incident occurred at the time and place, and in the manner 

alleged.10

Additionally, in its May 18, 2021 development letter, OWCP advised appellant of the 

factual information needed to establish her claim and attached a questionnaire regarding the 

circumstances surrounding the alleged traumatic injury for her completion. However, she did not 

complete and return the questionnaire. As appellant failed to provide responses to the questions 

posed, she did not sufficiently explain circumstances surrounding her alleged injury. 11

7 E.S., Docket No. 22-1339 (issued May 16, 2023); T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., 

Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8 C.M., Docket No. 20-1519 (issued March 22, 2021); Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002).

9

See J.M., Docket No. 19-1024 (issued October 18, 2019); M.F., Docket No. 18-1162 (issued April 9, 2019).

10 Supra note 8.

11 R.B., Docket No. 19-1026 (issued January 14, 2020); M.S., Docket No. 18-0059 (issued June 12, 2019); JohnR. 

Black, 49 ECAB 624 (1998); Judy Bryant, 40 ECAB 207 (1988); Martha G. List, 26 ECAB 200 (1974).
6

The Board, therefore, finds that appellant has not established an injury in the performance 

of duty on October 29, 2020, as alleged. Consequently, it is unnecessary to address the medical 

evidence of record.12

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 2

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 payment of compensation at any time on his own motion or on application.13

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.14

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

of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.15 A timely request for reconsideration may be 

granted if OWCP determines that the employee has presented evidence or provided an argument 

that meets at least one of the requirements for reconsideration. If OWCP chooses to grant 

reconsideration, it reopens and reviews the case on its merits.16 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.17

12 J.C., Docket No. 19-0542 (issued August 14, 2019); see M.P., Docket No. 15-0952 (issued July 23, 2015); 

Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005); Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215, 218 (1997) (as appellant failed to 

establish that the claimed incident occurred as alleged, it is unnecessary to discuss the probative value of medical 

evidence).

13 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see D.G., Docket No. 20-1203 (issued April28, 2021); T.K., Docket No. 19-1700 (issued 

April 30, 2020); see L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).

14 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see D.G., id.; 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).

15 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). Chapter 2.1602.4b.

16 Id. at § 10.608(a); D.G., supra note 13; F.V., Docket No. 18-0230 (issued May 8, 2020); see also M.S., 59 ECAB 

231 (2007).

17 Id. at § 10.608(b); B.S., Docket No. 20-0927 (issued January 29, 2021); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued 

March 18, 2010).
7

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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’s timely October 18, 2021 request for reconsideration does not 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).18

Appellant also did not submit relevant and pertinent new evidence in support of her 

reconsideration request. In support of her reconsideration request, she submitted duplicate copies

of Dr. Rhodin’s August 13 and September 16, 2021 medical reports. Evidence which repeats or 

duplicates evidence already of record has no evidentiary value and does not constitute a basis for 

reopening a case.19 

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 appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty on October 29, 2020, as alleged. The Board further finds that 

OWCP properly denied her request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. § 8128(a).

18 See R.L., Docket No. 20-1403 (issued July 21, 2021); M.O., Docket No. 19-1677 (issued February 25, 2020); 

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

19 R.B., Docket No. 21-0035 (issued May 13, 2021); V.L., Docket No. 19-0069 (issued February 10, 2020); A.K., 

Docket No. 19-1210 (issued November 20, 2019); R.S., Docket No. 19-0312 (issued June 18, 2019); Richard Yadron, 

57 ECAB 207 (2005); Eugene F. Butler, supra note 3.
8

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 22, July 8, October 14, and December 6, 

2021 decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: October 13, 2023

Washington, D.C.

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board