United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ROCKY MOUNT 

CARRIER ANNEX, Rocky Mount, NC, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0664

Issued: September 1, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. MCGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 5, 20211 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 13, 2020 nonmerit decision 

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

from the last merit decision dated July 19, 2019 to the filing of this appeal, pursuant to the Federal 

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. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from July 13, 2020, the date of OWCP’s last decision, was 

January 9, 2021. Because this fell on a Saturday, appellant had until the close of business on Monday, January 11, 

2021, to file the appeal. Since using March 15, 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 January 5, 2021, the appeal is, therefore, timely.
2

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

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 May 31, 2019 appellant, then a 54-year-old city letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 28, 2019 she sustained post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD), anxiety, major depressive disorder, and migraine headaches when a coworker hit her with 

a parcel while in the performance of duty. She added that she believed that this constitutedphysical 

assault, harassment, bullying, intimidation, and provocation. On the reverse side of the claim form, 

E.W., an employing establishment supervisor, indicated that appellant was injured in the 

performance of duty, but that her knowledge of the facts about the injury did not agree with 

statements of the employee and/or witnesses. Appellant stopped work on May 30, 2019 and 

returned to work on May 31, 2019. 

In a statement dated May 30, 2019, appellant indicated that D.K., her coworker, hit her left 

foot and looked at her in a condescending, demeaning, harassing, and provoking manner. She 

noted that she and D.K. had a history of prior incidents. Appellant related that the May 28, 2019 

incident caused an immediate flare up of her preexisting PTSD. 

In a development letter dated June 14, 2019, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of medical and factual 

evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 

days to submit the necessary evidence. 

OWCP subsequently received a second statement from appellant dated May 30, 2019 

indicating that on May 28, 2019 D.K. walked into her case with a parcel and bent down and hit 

her left foot with the parcel. Appellant further related that D.K. then stood up and looked at her 

angrily, turned, and walked out of her case. She indicated that this caused her PTSD, anxiety and 

depression to flare up, which impacted her concentration and productivity. 

In an employee health and safety application dated June 3, 2019, appellant reiterated the 

details of the claimed May 28, 2019 incident, and stated that D.K. gave her a menacing look and 

did not apologize, which caused her to feel that D.K invaded her space and assaulted her. 

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that,following the July 13, 2020 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.
3

In a third statement dated June 5, 2019, appellant indicated that she reported the incident 

on June 3, 2019 and that she requested that management conduct an investigation. 

In a narrative report dated June 11, 2019, Dr. Celeste Good, a psychiatrist, indicated that 

appellant had been under her care previously for recurrent depression and chronic PTSD. She 

opined that, because of appellant’s PTSD, appellant was not able to tolerate stressful events, loud 

noises, or conflict. Dr. Good indicated that when she saw appellant on May 30, 2019 appellant

related a history of D.K. hitting her foot with a parcel and then grimacing at her and walking away, 

which triggered a panic attack. She diagnosed an exacerbation of PTSD and opined that, as a result 

of the incident, appellant’s depression and anxiety worsened. 

In a letter dated June 12, 2019, Dr. Good requested that appellant be excused from work 

on various days and partial days in June 2019 and indicated that appellant could return to work 

with restrictions as of June 13, 2019. In a duty status report (Form CA-17) of even date, she 

diagnosed major depressive disorder and chronic PTSD. 

By letter dated June 17, 2019, the employing establishment controverted the claim based 

upon its investigation. It noted that appellant had a history of filing claims for stress/anxiety/PTSD 

when she had any interaction with coworkers and/or management that she found unsuitable. The 

employing establishment further argued that her mere perceptions or feelings did not constitute a 

compensable factor of employment. 

In a witness statement dated June 26, 2019, M.D., appellant’s coworker, indicated that 

appellant and D.K. do not communicate with each other. 

In a separate witness statement of even date, V.H., appellant’s coworker, indicated that it 

was widely known throughout the employing establishment that D.K. has a “disdain” for appellant,

that they do not speak to one another, and that this had been an ongoing issue since 2014. 

By decision dated July 19, 2019, OWCP found that appellant did not sustain an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty as she had not established that it “arose during the course of 

employment and within the scope of compensable work factors as defined by FECA.”

On April 17, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s July 19, 2019 decision. 

In support of her request, she argued that the evidence of record established that a medical 

condition arose during the course of her employment and within the scope of compensable work 

factors. Appellant also submitted July 31 and November 20, 2019 reports of Dr. Good, who 

indicated that appellant could return to work, but should avoid contact with two supervisors, M.G. 

and C.I., and that she required various other restrictions to reduce stress and noise. 

By decision dated July 13, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of her claim. 
4

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. 4

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.5

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.6 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens

and reviews the case on its merits.7 A right to reconsideration within one year also accompanies 

any subsequent merit decision on the issues.8 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.9

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 has not demonstrated that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific 

point of law. Moreover, she has not advanced a relevant legal argument not previously considered. 

Rather, appellant argued that she was in the performance of duty at the time of the May 28, 2019 

incident because she was performing her official duties. The Board finds, however, that this 

argument is not relevant to the underlying factual issue of the present case, i.e., whether she

4

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see M.S., Docket No. 19-1001 (issued December 9, 2019); L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued 

February11, 2019); see also V.P., Docket No. 17-1287 (issued October 10, 2017); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see also E.W., Docket No. 19-1393 (issued January 29, 2020); L.D., id.; B.W., Docket 

No. 18-1259 (issued January 25, 2019).

6

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.

7

Id. at § 10.608(a); see also Y.H., Docket No. 18-1618 (issued January 21, 2020); R.W., Docket No. 18-1324 (issued 

January 21, 2020); M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

8 F.N., Docket No. 18-1543 (issued March6, 2019); Robert F. Stone, 57 ECAB 292 (2005).

9

20 C.F.R. § 10.608(b); D.C., Docket No. 19-0873 (issued January 27, 2020); M.S., Docket No. 19-0291 (issued 

June 21, 2019).
5

established an emotional condition causally related to a compensable employment factor. 10 

Consequently, appellant is not entitled to a review of the merits of her claim based on the first and 

second above-noted requirements under section 10.606(b)(3).

The Board further finds that appellant has not provided any relevant and pertinent new 

evidence not previously considered. In support of her request for reconsideration, appellant

submitted additional reports from Dr. Good dated July 31 and November 20, 2019. While these 

reports were not previously considered, they are substantially similar to her June 11 and 18, 2019 

reports that were previously of record and considered by OWCP. Providing additional evidence 

that duplicates or is substantially similar to evidence already of record does not constitute a basis 

for reopening a case.11 As appellant has not provided relevant and pertinent new evidence, she 

was also not entitled to a merit review based on the third requirement under section 10.606(b)(3).12

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.13

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).

10 T.C., Docket No. 20-1536 (issued April23, 2021).

11 M.L., Docket No. 22-0120 (issued May 12, 2022); P.S., Docket No. 20-1090 (issued September 9, 2021); see 

G.J., Docket No. 20-0071 (issued July 1, 2020); V.Q., Docket No. 19-1309 (issued January 3, 2020); EugeneF. Butler, 

36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984).

12 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3)(iii); T.W., Docket No. 18-0821 (issued January 13, 2020).

13 T.G., Docket No. 20-0329 (issued October 19, 2020); C.C., Docket No. 17-0043 (issued June 15, 2018).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 13, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 1, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board