United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.N., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

EUGENE VA CLINIC, Eugene, OR, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-1057

Issued: December 21, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 4, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 3, 2023 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from the last merit decision dated July 6, 2022 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 August 13, 2021 appellant, then a 46-year-old medical instrument technician, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she had developed pain and swelling in her 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

right hand due to factors of her federal employment including repetitive movements of gripping 

ultrasound cameras and applying downward force to perform examinations. She noted that she 

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

August 13, 2021. Appellant did not stop work.

In an August 20, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

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

claim and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

respond. 

On August 22, 2021 appellant completed OWCP’s development questionnaire. In a 

September 20, 2021 report, Dr. Justin Hudson, an orthopedic surgeon, examined her due to diffuse 

right wrist pain with a radiating component. He diagnosed right cubital tunnel and ulnar abutment 

syndrome.

By decision dated October 18, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that a medical diagnosis had been established but the medical evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish a right wrist condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal 

employment.

On April 13, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted additional evidence. 

On September 28, 2021 she underwent electromyogram and nerve conduction velocity 

(EMG/NCV) testing which demonstrated mild right median nerve slowing at the wrist and mild 

right ulnar nerve slowing at the elbow. 

In a November 19, 2021 note,Dr. Jenna M. Godfrey, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

diagnosed right carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome. She completed a report on December 21, 

2021 and related appellant’s federal employment as a medical instrument technician which 

required repetitive use of her upper extremity while performing ultrasound likely significantly 

contributed to her carpal and cubital tunnel syndromes as inflammation around the nerves caused

compression which ultimately resulted in nerve damage. Dr. Godfrey opined, “I do think that the 

primary contributor to her diagnosis of carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome is the repetitive nature 

of her work that she has been doing for over 13 years.” She concluded that appellant’s job had 

caused her diagnosed conditions.

Appellant also provided three articles from medical publications describing work-related 

injuries in sonography and resubmitted Dr. Hudson’s September 20, 2021 report.

By decision dated July 6, 2022, OWCP denied modification.

On May 19, 2023 appellant requested reconsideration. She contended that she had 

previously provided sufficient medical evidence to establish causal relationship between her 

diagnosed right upper extremity conditions and her accepted employment activities. No additional 

evidence was received.

By decision dated August 3, 2023, 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 or her 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).

In support of her timely reconsideration request, appellant submitted a statement asserting 

that she had previously provided sufficient medical evidence to establish causal relationship 

between her diagnosed right upper extremity conditions and her accepted employment activities. 

Appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law and 

did not advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. Consequently, 

she 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).

2

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see R.C.,Docket No. 22-0612 (issued October 24, 2022); M.S.,Docket No. 19-1001 (issued 

December 9, 2019); L.D.,Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019); see also V.P.,Docket No. 17-1287 (issued 

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

3

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see R.C., id.; L.D., id.;see also K.L.,Docket No. 17-1479 (issued December 20, 2017); 

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. 

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.

5

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

6

Id. at § 10.608(b); R.C., supranote 2; M.S., Docket No. 19-0291 (issued June 21, 2019); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 

(issued March 18, 2010).
4

Further, appellant did not submit any additional evidence with her May 19, 2023 request 

for reconsideration. Because she did not provide any relevant and pertinent new evidence not 

previously considered by OWCP, she is not entitled to a review of the merits based on the third 

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

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 THATthe August 3, 2023 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 21, 2023

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

7

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3)(iii); see also K.R, Docket No. 23-0010 (issued June 5, 2023); S.H.,Docket No. 19-1897 

(issued April 21, 2020); M.K.,Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April 10, 2019); Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 

224-25 (1979).

8

See D.M., Docket No. 18-1003 (issued July 16, 2020); D.S., Docket No. 18-0353 (issued February 18, 2020); 

Susan A. Filkins, 57 ECAB 630 (2006) (when a request for reconsideration does not meet at least one of the three 

requirements enumerated under section 10.606(b), OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without reopening 

the case for a review on the merits).