United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Seattle, WA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1007

Issued: April 4, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 22, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 16, 2021 merit decision and 

a June 7, 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

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the June 7, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional evidence and appellant 

submitted additional evidence on appeal. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedureprovides: “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 that an injury 

occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged; and (2) whether OWCP properly denied her 

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 9, 2021 appellant, then a 55-year-old salary and wage administrator, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed bilateral tendinitis in her 

hands due to factors of her federal employment, including repetitive typing. She noted that she 

first became aware of her condition and first realized its relation to her federal employment on 

September 22, 2020. Appellant stopped work on February 1, 2021.

In a February 23, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It requested that she submit additional factual and medical evidence and provided a 

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

necessary evidence. 

Dr. Brian Bechtold, a Board-certified internist, indicated in a February 5, 2021 work 

restriction note that appellant should not perform any manual data entry work duties requiring 

finger dexterity, including the use of keyboard and mouse, until tendinitis in her hands improved. 

He recommended an ergonomic keyboard to reduce the recurrence risk. 

In a February 18, 2021 work restriction note, Dr. Bechtold excused appellant from work 

for the period January 29 through February 5, 2021. He noted that he was still evaluating her for 

an ongoing medical condition and indicated that she might have to miss more time from work. 

Dr. Bechtold again recommended an ergonomic keyboard.

In work restrictions notes dated March 12 and April 13, 2021, Dr. Bechtold excused 

appellant from work until May 2, 2021 and indicated that her left hand condition prevented her 

from performing her usual work duties.

By decision dated April 16, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. 

It found that she had not met her burden of proof to establish that an injury occurred due to the 

alleged factors of her federal employment. OWCP noted that appellant had not completed and 

returned its factual questionnaire. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met 

to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

In an April 21, 2021 memorandum of telephone call (Form CA-110), it was noted that 

appellant had notified OWCP that she received the April 16, 2021 decision but never received the 

February 23, 2021 development letter or development questionnaire. On April 21, 2021 OWCP 

resent her a copy of the February 23, 2021 development letter. It again requested that appellant 

respond to its development questionnaire. 

In a February 5, 2021 medical report, Dr. Bechtold noted that appellant presented with 

bilateral hand pain. He indicated that she previously fractured her left hand approximately six 
3

months prior and that it had been progressively worsening. Dr. Bechtold conducted a physical 

examination and diagnosed tendinitis of thumb and trigger middle finger of the right hand. 

In a February 18, 2021 medical report, Dr. Betchtold diagnosed weakness of the left hand 

and left wrist pain. 

On March 12, 2021 Dr. Bechtold diagnosed right hand trigger finger of the ring and middle 

fingers, and weakness of the left hand. 

In a March 19, 2021 medical report, Dr. Eric Lee, a Board-certified neurologist, noted that 

appellant previously sustained a fall injury in September 2020 in which she fractured her left radial 

head. He further observed that her right hand also did not bend as her fingers locked up. 

On an April 13, 2021 medical report, Dr. Bechtold diagnosed left arm neuropathy, mixed 

connective tissue disease, and trigger middle finger of the right hand.

A May 3, 2021 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the left forearm demonstrated 

nonspecific mild edema of the left flexor digitorum superficialis and pronator quadratus muscles 

without significant muscle atrophy or abnormal muscle enhancement. 

In a May 6, 2021 medical report, Dr. Bechtold noted that he initially thought that appellant 

had carpal tunnel syndrome and trigger finger in her hands, but reported that she was experiencing 

increasing symptoms of weakness in her left hand. He indicated that her electromyography (EMG) 

revealed anterior interosseous neuropathy. Dr. Bechtold diagnosed left anterior interosseous 

neuropathy, trigger ring finger of the left hand, and trigger middle finger of the right hand. 

In a May 7, 2021 medical note, Dr. Bechtold excused appellant from work until 

May 24, 2021. 

In a May 13, 2021 narrative report, Dr. Bechtold noted that appellant was first seen on 

January 29, 2021 and presented with left hand pain and weakness, as well as right hand pain. He 

reiterated that he initially suspected that she had carpal tunnel syndrome in her left hand. 

Dr. Bechtold opined, given appellant’s job as a data entry specialist, that her conditions were 

exacerbated by her work. He reported that her symptoms worsened de spite intervention. 

Appellant complained that she was experiencing more overt weakness, specifically in her thumb. 

Dr. Bechtold noted that she previously fell on September 22, 2020 and fractured the radius bone 

in her left arm. He opined that “more likely than not” that appellant’s symptoms are exacerbated 

by her workplace, though he suspected that her original injury in September is what first caused 

the symptoms in her left hand. 

In a May 14, 2021 medical report, Dr. Bechtold diagnosed trigger ring finger of the left 

hand and left anterior interosseous neuropathy. He noted that appellant underwent trigger finger 

injection on that day. 

On May 18, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted additional evidence 

in support of her request. 
4

In a May 25, 2021 medical report, Dr. Bechtold conducted a physical examination and 

diagnosed left anterior interosseous neuropathy and mixed connective tissue disease. Appellant 

also submitted prescription slips of even date. 

In undated notes, appellant indicated that she contacted OWCP several times for months 

and that she mailed all of her documents on April 22, 2021. She indicated that she left several 

messages to OWCP and that she was behind in her bills. Appellant also submitted a series of 

medical bills. 

By decision dated June 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 -- ISSUE 1

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

essential elements of his or her claim, including the fact that the individual is an employee of the 

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

time limitation period of FECA,4that 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 establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, an employee must submit the following: (1) a factual statement identifying 

employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the 

disease or condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or 

condition for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the 

diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the employee.7

3

Supra note 2. 

4

S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

5

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 

40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7

See A.S., Docket No. 19-1766 (issued March 26, 2020); R.G., Docket No. 19-0233 (issued July 16, 2019). See 

also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 

ECAB 345 (1989).
5

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that an injury 

occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged.

On her claim form, appellant asserted that she developed bilateral tendinitis in her hands 

due to factors of her federal employment, including repetitive typing. However, she did not 

provide further information regarding the claimed factors of employment. In a February 23, 2021 

development letter, OWCP requested that appellant clarify her claim and complete a factual 

questionnaire. However, appellant did not respond to OWCP’s development questionnaire or 

otherwise provide a detailed narrative statement describing the employment factors, which she 

believed contributed to her claimed conditions. As noted, the Board has held that to establish a 

claim for compensation in an occupational disease claim, an employee must submit a statement,

which identifies the factors of employment believed to have caused his or her claimed condition. 8 

By failing to respond to OWCP’s development questionnaire, she did not sufficiently explain 

circumstances surrounding her alleged medical condition.9

Consequently, as appellant has not presented sufficient factual evidence identifying 

specific employment factors or conditions alleged to have caused or contributed to her claimed 

medical conditions, the Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof.

10

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 compensation at any time on his or her own motion or on application.11

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 

8

Id. See also S.B., Docket No. 20-0016 (issued July 12, 2021); E.V., Docket No. 19-0447 (issued June 25, 2019); 

H.O., Docket No. 17-1176 (issued November 27, 2018).

9 R.B., Docket No. 19-1026 (issued January 14, 2020); L.T., Docket No. 19-1902 (issued April8, 2020); John R. 

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

10 Supra note 8. 

11 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019); V.P., Docket No. 17-1287 (issued 

October 10, 2017); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).
6

OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by 

OWCP.12

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.13 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

and reviews the case on its merits.14 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.15

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).

On reconsideration, appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted 

a specific point of law, nor did she advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered 

by OWCP. Consequently, she 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).16

Furthermore, appellant did not provide any relevant and pertinent new evidence not 

previously considered. In support of her reconsideration request, she submitted a series of medical 

reports dated February 5 through May 25, 2021 from Drs. Bechtold and Lee, as well as a May 25, 

2021 prescription script fromDr. Bechtold and a series of medical bills. This evidence, while new, 

is not relevant to the underlying issue in this case. The Board has held that the submission of 

evidence or argument, which does not address the underlying issue involved does not constitute a 

basis for reopening a case.17 As appellant did not provide relevant and pertinent new evidence not 

12 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see M.S., Docket No. 18-1041 (issued October 25, 2018); L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 

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

13 Id. at § 10.607(a). The one-year period begins on the next day after the date of the original contested decision. 

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.

14 Id. at § 10.608(a); see D.C., Docket No. 19-0873 (issued January 27, 2020); M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

15 Id. at § 10.608(b); see T.V., Docket No. 19-1504 (issued January 23, 2020); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued 

March 18, 2010).

16 Supra note 15. See alsoB.M., Docket No. 19-1273 (issued January 7, 2020); S.C., Docket No. 19-0479 (issued 

August 8, 2019); T.B., Docket No. 18-1214 (issued January 29, 2019); C.B., Docket No. 08-1583 (issued 

December 9, 2008).

17 P.G., Docket No. 20-1419 (issued September 16, 2021); H.H., Docket No. 18-1660 (issued March 14, 2019); 

F.B., Docket No. 18-1039 (issued December 6, 2018); Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984); Edward Matthew

Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224-25 (1979).
7

previously considered by OWCP, she is also not entitled to a review of the merits of her claim 

based on the third above-noted requirement under section 10.606(b)(3).18

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.19

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that an injury 

occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged. 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 April 16 and June 7, 2021 decisions of the Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: April 4, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

18 Supra note 15. 

19 See J.B., Docket No. 20-0145 (issued September 8, 2020); D.G., Docket No. 19-1348 (issued December 2, 2019).