United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL OFFICE, POST OFFICE,

Canton, MS, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0789

Issued: March 25, 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 1, 20211 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 7, 2020 nonmerit 

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

elapsed from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated August 19, 2020, to the filing of this appeal, 

pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board lacks jurisdiction over the merits of this case.3

1 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of the last OWCP 

decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e)(f). 

One hundred and eighty days from October 7, 2020, the date of OWCP’s last decision, was April5, 2021. Since using 

April 12, 2021, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards, would result in the loss of 

appeal rights, the date of the postmark is considered the date of filing. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1). As appellant’s 

appeal request was postmarked April 1, 2021, the appeal is,therefore,timely.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that, following the October 7, 2020 decision, OWCP received additional evidence and appellant 

submitted additional evidence on appeal. 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

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 January 24, 2020 appellant, then a 56-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 23, 2020 she injured her right arm and shoulder when 

trying to catch a heavy package that slipped out of her hand while in the performance of duty. She 

stopped work on the date of injury.4

In support of her claim, appellant submitted hospital records, including a January 24, 2020 

discharge summary and emergency department reports from Dr. Richard Miles, Board-certified in 

emergency medicine, who diagnosed right rotator cuff strain.

By decision dated March 6, 2020, OWCP accepted the claim for sprain of right rotator cuff 

capsule (right rotator cuff syndrome) and sprain of right acromioclavicular (AC) joint (right AC 

joint arthrosis). It paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls from March 9

through April 28, 2020.

5

In a March 27, 2020 initial report, Theresa Koerber, a field nurse OWCP assigned to 

appellant’s claim, noted diagnoses of right rotator cuff syndrome and sprain of right 

acromioclavicular (AC) joint (right AC joint arthrosis).

In March 27 and April 3, 2020 letters and an April 6, 2020 work capacity evaluation for 

musculoskeletal conditions (Form OWCP-5c), Dr. William B. Geissler, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, advised that appellant could return to light-duty work with restrictions of no 

reaching overhead, pushing, pulling, or lifting over five pounds. He indicated that appellant 

received an injection to the right shoulder and was undergoing physical therapy treatment for her 

diagnosed rotator cuff syndrome. Dr. Geissler also provided restrictions limiting his work 

schedule to 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

On May 15, 2020 the employing establishment offered appellant a limited-full-time 

position as a modified rural carrier, effective May 23, 2020. The duties included: surface visibility 

scanning for two to four hours per day and quality checks on mail transport equipment for four to 

seven hours per day. The tour of duty was from 9:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. The physical requirements 

included: no pulling or pushing over five pounds and no reaching overhead.

In a May 22, 2020 statement, appellant noted that she had concerns about her medical 

limitations and requested reasonable accommodation from the employing establishment. She 

4 On January 24, 2020 the employing establishment executed an authorization for examination and/or treatment 

(Form CA-16).

5 On July 31, 2020 appellant filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) under OWCP File No. xxxxxx968 

alleging that she reinjured her right shoulder when she fainted on June 26, 2020 while in the performance of duty. 

OWCP denied that claim, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish the factual component of 

fact of injury. This claim is not presently before the Board. The Board notes that OWCP has not administratively 

combined these claims. 
3

indicated that, pursuant to her doctors’ recommendations,she was unable to report to work until 

her next appointment on May 27, 2020.

The employing establishment, in a May 26, 2020 letter, notified OWCP that appellant 

expressed concerns over her medical limitations and refused the offer of modified assignment.

In a May 26, 2020 note, Dr. Joe W. Terry, Board-certified in family practice, noted that 

appellant was on medication at night that made her drowsy and unable to drive or stay alert. He 

indicated that she could only work and drive between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

In a May 27, 2020 medical report, Dr. Geissler indicated that appellant had been 

undergoing physical therapy treatment. He conducted a physical examination and diagnosed right 

rotator cuff syndrome and AC joint arthrosis. Dr. Geissler advised that appellant could return to 

light-duty work with restrictions of no reaching overhead, pushing, lifting, or pulling more than 

10 pounds. He also indicated that her primary doctor restricted her from working at night.

The employing establishment requested, in letters dated May 27 and 28, 2020, that OWCP 

determine whether the offered position was suitable. It noted that appellant provided medical 

documentation to negate the work hours identified on the offer of modified assignment and added 

restriction of lifting to the physical requirement.

OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls from April 29 

through May 8, 2020.

Appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability from work for the 

period May 13 through June 3, 2020.

In a letter dated June 11, 2020, OWCP acknowledged receipt of appellant’s Form CA-7 

and advised her that it had processed a wage-loss compensation payment for the period May 13 

through 22, 2020. It also noted that the employing establishment had offered appellant a modified 

temporary light-duty assignment on May 15, 2020, effective May 23, 2020, which she declined. 

OWCP informed her that the duties and physical requirements of the employing establishment’s 

temporary light-duty assignment were within Dr. Geissler’s April 3, 6, and May 27, 2020 work 

restrictions. It also informed appellant of the provisions of 20 C.F.R. § 10.500(a) and further 

advised that her entitlement to wage-loss compensation may be denied under this provision if she 

did not accept the offered assignment or provide a written explanation with justification for her 

refusal within 30 days. OWCP specifically requested appellant to submit evidence to support that 

the assignment was no longer available or no longer accommodated her medical restrictions.

Appellant filed a Form CA-7 for disability from work for the period June 4 through 

17, 2020.

In a June 18, 2020 statement, appellant noted that she was distraught by her report time on 

her modified job offer because the medication she took at night caused drowsiness and dizziness. 

She contended that she signed the modified offer on May 21, 2020 and returned it to the address 

given. Appellant also contended that the employing establishment notified her that, per

Dr. Geissler’s recommendation, she was not to report to work until May 28, 2020.
4

On June 19, 2020 appellant accepted the offer of modified assignment as a limited-duty 

rural carrier.

In a June 26, 2020 letter, the employing establishment notified OWCP that appellant 

returned to work on June 25, 2020, but on June 26, 2020 she took a muscle relaxer due to her arm 

hurting and subsequently fainted while at work. It indicated that she was sent to a hospital. In a 

letter of even date, Lauren W. Buffington, a nurse practitioner, verified that appellant was seen in 

the emergency room that day and indicated that she could return to work with restrictions.

In a June 29, 2020 letter, Dr. Terry again noted that appellant was on medication at night 

that made her drowsy and unable to drive or stay alert. He indicated that she could only work and 

drive between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. In a work status note of even date, Dr. Terry 

indicated that appellant could return to full-duty work on July 7, 2020 without restrictions.

Appellant filed a Form CA-7 for disability from work for the period June 21 through 

July 14, 2020.

In a July 22, 2020 development letter, OWCP acknowledged receipt of appellant’s claim 

for wage-loss compensation beginning June 21, 2020 and advised that additional evidence was 

needed to establish disability from work during the claimed periods. It advised that the evidence 

indicated that a temporary light-duty assignment was available within appellant’s medical 

restrictions with the employing establishment for the period of claimed lost time and requested 

evidence to support why she did not work the temporary light-duty assignment. OWCP afforded 

appellant 30 days to submit the requested medical evidence.

In a May 27, 2020 progress report, Ms. Koerber indicated that the employing establishment 

notified her that job duties within compliance of the recommended restrictions from Dr. Geissler 

were not available for appellant at this time.

In a June 26, 2020 progress report, Ms. Koerber noted that appellant had been released to 

return to limited-duty work on June 26, 2020.

In a July 20, 2020 medical report, Dr. Geissler noted appellant’s complaint that her work 

duties require her to lean over pick up about 100 boxes out of bins, which aggravated and increased 

her right shoulder pain. Appellant also reported that her tasks made her dizzy. Dr. Geissler noted 

that in late June appellant took pain medication before passing out at work. He indicated that she 

had not been back at work since her fall.

In an August 10, 2020 memorandum of telephone call (Form CA-110), OWCP notified

Ms. Koerber that appellant sustained a recurrence of disability on June 26, 2020, when she passed 

out at work and reinjured her right shoulder due to the medicine she was taking.

In an August 19, 2020 Form CA-110, OWCP notified Ms. Koerber that appellant filed a 

new injury claim for right shoulder injury that allegedly occurred on June 26, 2020 when she 

fainted at work.

By decision dated August 19, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

claim for disability from work, commencing May 23, 2020, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.500(a) 

based on her refusal to accept the employing establishment’s May 15, 2020 offer for a temporary 
5

light-duty assignment. It explained that the evidence established that she had medical restrictions 

in place, a light-duty work assignment within those restrictions was available to her, and she was 

previously notified in writing that such light-duty work was available.

On September 22, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration. Along with her request, she 

resubmitted copies of the January 24, 2020 hospital record, the March 27, 2020 progress report 

from Ms. Koerber, and the July 20, 2020 medical report from Dr. Geissler, as well as the signed

offer of modified assignment.

Appellant also submitted progress reports dated July 26, August 25, and September 27, 

2020 from Ms. Koerber. Ms. Koerber noted that appellant continued to experience right shoulder 

symptoms after the June 26, 2020 fall, when she reinjured her right shoulder. She indicated that

Dr. Geissler had recommended that appellant remain off work.

By decision dated October 7, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

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

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 own motion or on application.6

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.7

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.8 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

and reviews the case on its merits.9 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.10

6

Supra note 1 at § 8128(a); see 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).

7

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see 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).

8

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.

9

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

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

March 18, 2010).
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).

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

interpreted a specific point of law, nor did it advance a relevant legal argument not previously 

considered by OWCP. Consequently, she was not entitled to a review of the merits based o n the 

first and second above-noted requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).11

The Board further finds that appellant did not submit relevant and pertinent new evidence 

not previously considered by OWCP. In support of her reconsideration request, appellant 

submitted duplicative records, including a January 24, 2020 hospital record, March 27, 2020 

progress report from the field nurse, and a July 20, 2020 medical report from Dr. Geissler, as well 

as her signed offer of modified assignment. The Board has held that evidence or argument that 

repeats or duplicates evidence previously of record has no evidentiary value and does not constitute 

a basis for reopening a case.12 Thus, this evidence is insufficient to warrant a merit review.

Appellant also submitted progress reports dated July 26, August 25, and September 27, 

2020 from Ms. Koerber, the field nurse. The underlying issue on reconsideration was whether she 

had met her burden of proof to establish disability from work during the period claimed causally 

related to her accepted work-related medical conditions. This is a medical question that requires 

rationalized medical opinion evidence to resolve the issue.13 Certain healthcare providers such as 

physical therapists, nurses, physician assistants, and social workers are not considered physicians 

as defined under FECA.14 Consequently, their medical findings and/or opinions will not suffice 

for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.15 As Ms. Koerber’s reports do not 

constitute competent medical evidence, they are, therefore, irrelevant to the underlying merit issue. 

The Board has held that the submission of evidence that does not address the particular issue 

involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.16 Therefore, appellant is not entitled to 

11 See S.G., Docket No. 21-0067 (issued August 23, 2021); K.F., Docket No. 19-1846 (issued November 3, 2020).

12C.L., Docket No. 20-0410 (issued October 29, 2020); M.G., Docket No. 18-0654 (issued October 17, 2018); D.K., 

59 ECAB 141 (2007); Kenneth R. Mroczkowki, 40 ECAB 855 (1989); EugeneF. Butler, 36 ECAB 393 (1984).

13 Y.L., Docket No. 20-1025 (issued November 25, 2020); M.P., Docket No. 19-1872 (issued April15, 2020). 

14 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that the term physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical 

psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined 

by State law. 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, 

Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); DavidP. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006) (lay 

individuals such as physician assistants, nurses, and physical therapists are not competent to render a medical opinion 

under FECA). 

15 Id.

16 See T.T., Docket No. 19-0319 (issued October 26, 2020); AlanG. Williams, 52 ECAB 180 (2000); Jacqueline M. 

Nixon-Steward, 52 ECB 140 (2000); Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224, 225 (1979).
7

further review of the merits of her claim based on the third above-noted requirement under 

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).17

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.18

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).19

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 7, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 25, 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

17 Supra note 7.

18 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).

19 The Board notes that the employing establishment executed a Form CA-16. A completed Form CA-16 

authorization may constitute a contract for payment of medical expenses to a medical facility or physician, when 

properly executed. The form creates a contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee directly, to pay 

for the cost of the examination or treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim. See 20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c); 

J.G., Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 2018); TracyP. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).