United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

Z.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MILLBRAE POST 

OFFICE, Millbrae, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0720

Issued: September 27, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Eddie Reyna, for the appellant,1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 19, 2023 appellantfiled a timely appealfroma March 22, 2023 nonmerit decision

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

OWCP’s last merit decision, dated February 2, 2022, 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.

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
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 November 12, 2021 appellant, then a 58-year-old sales, services, and distribution 

associate, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed emotional 

conditions including anxiety, panic attacks, and major depressive disorder due to factors of her 

federal employment. She asserted that an employing establishment supervisor, R.F., falsely 

accused her of telling construction workers to stop working on November 2, 2021 and that she was 

verbally attacked by safety manager S.L. and others, which created a hostile work environment. 

On the reverse side of the claim form, R.F. controverted the claim, noting that appellant displayed 

an emotional reaction that was self-generated. Appellant indicated that she first became aware of 

her conditions and realized their relation to her federal employment on November 4, 2021. She 

stopped work on November 4, 2021 and returned on November 8, 2021. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted an undated statement noting that, on 

November 4, 2021, at 10:52 a.m., she observed a construction worker removing flooring and 

creating dust without using a curtain, despite instructions to do so. She related that, when she 

asked a contractor whether a curtain would be used, he advised that he did not know. Appellant 

indicated that a supervisor, R.F., subsequently called her into his office and accused her of asking

a contractor to stop working, which she denied doing, and that he asked her to write a statement

admitting that she told contractors to stop. She considered this incident to be retaliation by R.F.

for reporting health and safety issues at the employing establishment, and noted that he was aware 

of her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) condition, and attempted to trigger her anxiety and 

disrupt her work duties. In a November 4, 2021 incident report, the acting postmaster, R.F.,

pursuant to his investigation, recounted appellant’s interactions with the contractors and other 

witnesses on November 2, 2021. 

In a November 4, 2021 note, Dr. Chin-Po Paul Yang, a Board-certified psychiatrist, 

indicated that appellant experienced worsening PTSD symptoms at the employing establishment

on that date when she was subjected to alleged intense bullying and harassment by supervisors. 

He related that she experienced heightened anxiety with panic symptoms including shakiness, 

shortness of breath, heart palpitations, uncontrollable crying, headache, and diminished cognitive 

functioning. Dr. Yang held appellant off work until November 8, 2021. 

In a November 30, 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 factual questionnaire for her completion. In a separate development letter 

of even date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide additional information, 

including comments from a knowledgeable supervisor. It afforded both parties 30 days to submit 

the requested evidence. 

Thereafter, OWCP received response from R.F. reiterating that appellant was asked if she 

ever spoke to the construction crew and told them to stop working. When appellant related that 

she had not done so, she was asked to write a statement of her interaction with the crew foreman
3

and identify who she interacted with, but she was unsure and left to identify the person. R.F. 

explained that he never asked her to write a statement admitting that she instructed the crew to 

stop working, and he only asked herto document her interactionwith them. He asserted that safety 

is a priority, and that appellant’s allegation that she was being retaliated against for exercising her 

right to make a report of hazard was meritless and unfounded. 

In a November 2, 2021 statement, appellant again related her interaction with the 

contractors. In a November 4, 2021 progress note,Dr. Yang noted that she sought urgent treatment 

for worsening of anxiety, panic attack, and PTSD symptoms after she had an emotional meltdown 

at work due to a traumatic encounter with her supervisor that day. He related that appellant

reported that employees were in the office to enforce environmental codes, including a safety 

officer who instructed that construction work be completed behind a curtain to contain dust. 

Dr. Yang indicated that she reported that she “gently” questioned the contractors as to why there 

was no curtain, and her supervisor subsequently accused her of instructing workers to stop 

working, which she attempted to explain that she had not done. However, appellant’s supervisor 

would not listen and ordered appellant to write a report, triggering her PTSD and causing her to 

lose emotional control and cry. Appellantfurther related that hersupervisor humiliated her in front 

of the contractors and blamed her for disturbing the peace, and that she cried incessantly, could 

not work, and had to go home early. Dr. Yangnoted that she reported shaking while driving home, 

heart palpitations, shortness of breath, sweating, headache, numbness, rumination over traumatic 

memories, lack of concentration, and insomnia. He diagnosed major depressive disorder and

PTSD. 

By decision dated February 2, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that she had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish the implicated factors of her

federal employment. Consequently, it found that she had not met the requirements to establish an 

injury as defined by FECA.

On February 2, 2023 appellant, through her representative, requested reconsideration of 

the February 2, 2022 decision and submitted additional evidence, including a duplicate copy of 

R.F.’s November 4, 2021 incident report. Appellant also submitted a January 31, 2023 statement 

in which she noted that R.F. was the author of the November 4, 2021 incident statement and was 

a witness to the events on that date, and that she wished to use R.F.’s November 4, 2021 incident

statement as evidence to support her claim. 

In a February 1, 2023 note, Dr. Yang referenced his November 4, 2021 progress note, and 

reiterated that the events that occurred on that date triggered and superimposed appellant’s existing 

PTSD condition, and that there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. 

By decision dated March 22, 2023, 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 does not entitle a claimant to review of an OWCP decision as a 

matter of right.3 OWCP has discretionary authority in this regard and has imposed certain 

3

Id. at § 8128(a).
4

limitations in exercising its authority.4 One such limitation is that the request for reconsideration 

must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of the decision for which review is sought. 5 

A timely application for reconsideration, including all supporting documents, must set forth 

arguments and contain evidence that either: (i) shows that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law; (ii) advances a relevant legal argument not previously 

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

considered by OWCP.6 When a timely application for reconsideration does not meet at least one 

of the above-noted requirements, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for a review on the merits.7

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 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 abovenoted requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).

In support of her reconsideration request, appellant submitted a duplicate copy of R.F.’s

November 4, 2021 incident report and a February 1, 2023 note from Dr. Yang reiterating his 

findings and observations from his November 4, 2021 progress note. The Board has held that 

evidence which merely duplicates or is substantially similar to evidence already of record has no 

evidentiary value and does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.8 In its February 2, 2022 

merit decision, OWCP noted that it had received a November 4, 2021 incident report by R.F. Thus, 

the November 4, 2021 incident report does not constitute relevant and pertinent new evidence not 

previously considered by OWCP. Additionally, as the issue in the case was factual and not medical 

in nature, Dr. Yang’s February 1, 2023 note is not relevant to the issue for which OWCP denied 

appellant’s claim.9 The Board has held that the submission of evidence which does not address 

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.607.

5

Id. § 10.607(a). 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.

6

Id. at § 10.606(b)(3).

7

Id. § 10.608(a), (b).

8 M.F., Docket No. 21-1221 (issued March 28, 2022); R.B., Docket No. 21-0035 (issued May 13, 2021); B.S., 

Docket No. 20-0927 (issued January 29, 2021); M.O., Docket No. 19-1677 (issued February 25, 2020); Richard 

Yadron, 57 ECAB 207 (2005); Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984).

9

See F.B., Docket No. 18-1039 (issued December 6, 2018); M.M., Docket No. 15-1622 (issued September 27, 

2016); T.E., Docket No. 14-1047 (issued October 9, 2014); BonnieA. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006) (where a 

claimant did not establish an employment incident alleged to have caused an injury, it was not necessary to consider 

any medical evidence); Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224-25 (1979).
5

the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case. 10 Appellant, 

therefore, was not entitled to a review of the merits of her claim based on the third above-noted 

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

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.11

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 THAT the March 22, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 27, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

10 Id.; D.P., Docket No. 13-1849 (issued December 19, 2013).

11 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).