United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MEMORIAL POST 

OFFICE, Bedford Park, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0148

Issued: May 22, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 9, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 20, 2022 merit decision 

and August 10 and October 3, 2022 nonmerit decisions 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 his burden of proof to establish a right foot

condition causally related to the accepted January 3, 2022 employment incident; and (2) whether 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the October 3, 2022 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

OWCP properly denied appellant’s requestsfor reconsideration of the merits of his claim, pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 5, 2022 appellant, then a 51-year-old carrier technician, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 3, 2022 he sustained a rupture of the right 

gastrocnemius Achilles tendon when he unloaded a postal vehicle while in the performance of 

duty. He stopped work on January 4, 2022 and returned to work on March 22, 2022. 

Appellant submitted an unsigned medical report dated January 5, 2022 which noted a 

January 3, 2022 date of injury and a diagnosis of right gastrocnemius tendon rupture. 

In a work excuse note dated January 5, 2022, Dr. Osaretin Idusuyi, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, recommended that appellant be excused from work until February 7, 2022 due 

to a rupture of the right gastrocnemius tendon. In a work excuse note dated February 7, 2022, He

recommended that appellant be excused from work until March 21, 2022. In a note dated 

March 21, 2022, Dr. Idusuyi recommended that appellant could return to work with no restrictions 

on March 22, 2022.

In a development letter dated April 13, 2022, OWCP informed appellant that additional 

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

medical evidence needed and afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

By decision dated May 20, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between his diagnosed 

conditions and the accepted employment incident of January 3, 2022.

On August 4, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration. With his request, he provided a 

narrative statement describing the January 3, 2022 incident.

By decision dated August 10, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

of the merits of his claim.

On August 23, 2022 appellant again requested reconsideration. He resubmitted his 

August 4, 2022 narrative statement describing the January 3, 2022 incident.

By decision dated October 3, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

of the merits of his claim.

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, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time 

3

Supra note 1.
3

limitation 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 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 

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. The first compon ent is that the 

employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she 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 

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific 

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 8 The opinion of 

the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, 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 specific employment incident.9

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a right foot

condition causally related to the January 3, 2022 employment incident.

In support of his of January 3, 2022 traumatic injury claim, appellant submitted notes from

Dr. Idusuyi. On January 5, 2022 Dr. Idusuyi recommended that appellant be excused from work 

until February 7, 2022 due to a rupture of the right gastrocnemius tendon. On February 7, 2022 

he recommended that appellant be excused from work until March 21, 2022. On March 21, 2022

Dr. Idusuyi opined that appellant could return to work with no restrictions on March 22, 2022. 

While these notes related the medical diagnosis of a rupture of the right gastrocnemius tendon, 

they did not offer a medical opinion regarding the cause of appellant’s diagnosed condition. The 

Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an 

4 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

5 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). 

7 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

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April24, 2019); RobertG. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

9 T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 2020); 

Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
4

employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.10 Therefore, this 

evidence is insufficient to establish the claim.

Appellant also submitted an unsigned report dated January 5, 2022, which noted a date of 

injury and diagnosis. The Board has previously held that a medical note, which is unsigned or 

contains an illegible signature, lacks probative value, as it is not established that the author is a 

physician.11 This report is therefore insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

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

related to the accepted January 3, 2022 employment incident, the Board finds that appellant has 

not met his 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 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. 12

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.13

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.14 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

10 D.C., Docket No. 19-1093 (issued June 25, 2020); see L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018); D.K., 

Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

11 See Z.G., Docket No. 19-0967 (issued October 21, 2019); R.M., 59 ECAB 690 (2008); BradfordL. Sullivan, 33 

ECAB 1568 (1982) (where the Board held that a medical report may not be considered as probative medical evidence 

if there is no indication that the person completing the report qualifies as a physician as defined in FECA).

12 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019); 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).

13 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); L.D., id.; L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 (issued March 3, 2010); C.N., Docket No. 08-1569 

(issued December 9, 2008).

14 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.
5

and reviews the case on its merits.15 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.16

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s requestsfor reconsideration of the 

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

Appellant’s requests for reconsideration did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or 

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

previously considered. Thus, he is not entitled to a review of the merits of his claim based on the 

first and second above-noted requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

With his August 4, 2022 request for reconsideration, appellant submitted a narrative 

statement describing the accepted January 3, 2022 work incident. The underlying issue in this 

case, however, is medical in nature. Therefore, this factual evidence is irrelevant to the underlying 

issue and is insufficient to warrant merit review. With his August 23, 2022 request for 

reconsideration, appellant resubmitted his August 4, 2022 narrative statement. This evidence, 

however, is duplicative of evidence previously submitted and considered by OWCP. The Board 

has held that the submission of evidence or argument, which repeats or duplicates evidence or 

argument already of record does not constitute a basis for reopening a claim. 17 Because appellant 

has not provided relevant and pertinent new evidence, he was not entitled to a review of the merits 

based on the third 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.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a right foot 

condition causally related to the accepted January 3, 2022 employment incident. The Board 

further finds that OWCP properly denied his requests for reconsideration of the merits of his claim 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

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

16 Id. at § 10.608(b); O.P., Docket No. 19-0445 (issued July 24, 2019); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued

March 18, 2010).

17 D.B., Docket No. 22-1241 (issued April 27, 2023).

18 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3)(iii).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 20, August 10, and October 3, 2022 

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

Issued: May 22, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board