United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.Y., Appellant

and

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

ATLANTA REGION, Atlanta, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0699

Issued: June 2, 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

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 5, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 9, 2021 merit decision 

and a March 28, 2022 nonmerit decision 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

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the March 28, 2022 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to 

OWCP. 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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged; and (2) 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

This case has previously been before the Board.3 The facts and circumstances of the case 

as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts 

are as follows.

On June 27, 2018 appellant, then a 40-year-old lead contact representative, filed an

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she experienced anxiety attacks due to

factors of her federal employment. She asserted that her job required her to service the public by

performing a high volume of work at the front window, answering a steady stream of incoming

telephone calls, processing mail/work listings, and implementing multiple employing 

establishment programs, policies, and procedures. Appellant maintained that, after the 

management in her local office changed at the end of 2016, the new management subjected her to 

harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, and her stress level increased drastically. She noted, 

“I went from an average manageable work environment to a hostile work environment in 2017.”

Appellant noted thatshe first became aware of her claimed condition on March 8, 2017 and first 

realized its relation to her federal employment on August 17, 2017. She did not stop work.

In a July 9, 2018 statement, appellant alleged that, after her local office management team

changed in approximately November 2016, her work environment changed from being normal to

being “completely hostile and intolerable.” She asserted that she contacted employing

establishment officials about the problem, but it remained unresolved. Appellant indicated that 

she had been promoted to lead customer service representative in October 2016 and had been able 

to “manage the daily stresses” of performing her job duties. She claimed that the new management 

team embarrassed her in front of coworkers and the public, gave her duplicate work assignments, 

and wrongly denied her career advancement opportunities. Appellant recounted that, in 

approximately August 2017, she realized that management did not appreciate her hard work and 

that, in approximately October 2017, D.M., her immediate supervisor since late-2016, retaliated 

against her for filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claim by 

“manipulating” her performance review.

Appellant submitted medical reports, dated March 9, 2017 through July 6, 2018, in which

Dr. Kimberly Kaye, a Board-certified internist, excused her from work for a series of periods. In 

her July 6, 2018 report, Dr. Kaye noted that appellant, who had been diagnosed with anxiety, 

reported working in a hostile and discriminatory environment.

In a July 24, 2018 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of her 

claim. It advised her of the type of evidence necessary and attached a questionnaire for her 

completion. By separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested that the employing 

3 Docket No. 21-0179 (issued September 30, 2021).
3

establishment provide comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding appellant’s 

allegations. It afforded both parties 30 days to respond.

On August 6, 2018 OWCP received a document in which appellant asserted that D.M. 

unfairly criticized her in December 2016 when she submitted a form to gain authorization to 

operate a private transportation business and that she used a “rude, harsh, and abrupt tone” to 

wrongly accuse her of misplacing a form that a claimant had filed to appeal an agency decision. 

Appellant alleged that, on approximately January 20, 2017, D.M. told appellant in a harsh tone 

that appellant could promote whomever she wished regardless of work ethic and job performance 

as the lead customer service representative. D.M. also spoke to appellant in a harsh manner 

regarding appellant’s responsibility for all training and development in her work unit. Appellant 

claimed that, in March 2017, D.M. and another supervisor isolated her from the rest of her work 

unit by first announcing an upcoming meeting to other service representatives and that D.M. 

showed no remorse for her actions. She alleged that, on approximately April 10, 2017,D.M. spoke 

loudly in a harsh tone in the middle of the office and questioned her as to whether she was going 

to work on her private business while she was at home on sick leave.

Appellant asserted that, in April 2017, she expressed her concerns regarding the work 

environment to D.M. and another supervisor, but they did not address her concerns. She believed 

that D.M. had punitive intent when she indicated that she would determine her days off work. 

Appellant claimed that, when she received a performance evaluation in April 2017, D.M. told her 

in a condescending tone that she needed to show more initiative. She maintained that, in earlyMay 2017, D.M. unnecessarily embarrassed her in front of coworkers about a minor error, and 

also rudely banged on her computer and told her to “check her mail” for no apparent reason. 

Appellant claimed that, on May 5, 2017, D.M. improperly directed her to redo a work assignment 

and that, in July 2017, she unreasonably scrutinized how long she took for her lunch break and 

wrongly criticized her for several emails she sent regarding her mentoring of a trainee. She alleged 

that, between August and December 2017, D.M. improperly instructed her to use personal leave 

to address an EEOC matter, which she believed to be work related.

In an August 6, 2018 statement, appellant described her work schedule and noted that she

had been able to manage the stresses of her job as a customer service representative prior to the

November 2016 change in the management team of her local office. She again asserted that she

did not develop an emotional condition until 2017 when the new management team subjected her

to discrimination and mistreatment. Appellant later submitted additional medical evidence and

several administrative documents, including forms relating to her request for approval of activity

outside the workplace and an August 27, 2018 EEOC decision finding that the employing

establishment had not subjected her to harassment or discrimination.

In an August 23, 2018 statement, D.M. expressed her belief that appellant’s anxiety was 

related to her multiple family-related matters and “unrealistic expectations set by herself.” She 

asserted that appellant overextended herself by working in two businesses outside the employing 

establishment and providing support to aging parents and a young child. D.M. noted that appellant 

alleged her workload was extremely backlogged, but indicated that workload listings did not 

support this allegation. She indicated that, during appellant’s many absences, coworkers processed 

her work. D.M. advised that appellant primarily met her deadlines and targets and that, “on the 

rare occasion when a case slipped through,” she did not face any adverse action. She noted that a 
4

member of appellant’s unit was out of work for three weeks, but indicated that, in such cases,

employees would be reassigned from other units as backup without any major disruption. 

In an August 23, 2018 statement, K.M., a management support specialist, asserted that

appellant underwent training in late November 2016 to assist her in prioritizing and monitoring 

her workload. She discussed appellant’s work outside the employing establishing and her care for 

ailing relatives. K.M. claimed that several employees reported to her that appellant had acted 

towards them in a contentious manner.

By decision dated November 19, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition 

claim because she failed to establish a compensable employment factor. In the factual portion of

the decision, it detailed the statements contained in appellant’s June 27, 2018 Form CA-2. In the

analysis section of the decision, OWCP generally described her allegations.

On December 26, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration of the November 19, 2018

decision. She submitted another document in which she provided further details regarding her 

claimed employment factors. Appellant submitted additional medical evidence and administrative 

documents and emails regarding such matters as leave usage, reasonable accommodation for 

medical conditions, and performance ratings.

By decision dated March 26, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its November 19, 2018

decision.

On November 19, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration of the March 26, 2019

decision. In an October 23, 2019 statement, she asserted that D.M. presented false information

that led to appellant’s claim being denied. Appellant submitted additional medical evidence.

By decision dated February 24, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its March 26, 2019

decision.

On June 24, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration of the February 24, 2020 decision. 

She submitted statements from three employing establishment employees who described their own

alleged problems with D.M. Appellant submitted numerous documents from an EEOC complaint 

and a lawsuit she filed in U.S. District Court in 2019.

By decision dated September 25, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its February 24,

2020 decision. 

Appellant appealed to the Board and, by decision dated September 30, 2021,

4

the Board 

set aside the September 25, 2020 decision and remanded the case to OWCP. The Board found that

OWCP failed to provide adequate facts and findings in support of its denial of her emotional 

condition claim. The Board directed OWCP to evaluate appellant’s emotional condition claim and 

issue a decision, which contained adequate facts and findings.

4 Docket No. 21-0179 (issued September 30, 2021).
5

On remand, OWCP further evaluated appellant’s emotional condition claim and by 

decision dated November 9, 2021, it denied the claim because she did not establish a compensable 

employment factor. It provided a more detailed discussion of her claimed employment factors.

On December 28, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of the November 9, 2021 

decision. In an accompanying statement, she further discussed her job duties, including her need 

to address customer service and public relations issues. Appellant indicated that many customers 

requiring service lined up in the lobby of her workspace and that she dealt with a high volume of 

incoming telephone calls and inquiries by mail. She also argued that she established employment 

factors with respect to harassment/discrimination by supervisors, and wrongdoing by management 

regarding administrative matters.

Appellant submitted a November 21, 2021 statement from a coworker who asserted that 

she had worked with appellant since 2008. The coworker indicated that appellant worked hard to 

help both coworkers and customers. She noted that she had been informed by an unspecified 

person that work-related stress was the cause of appellant having taken extended leave. The 

coworker noted, “[t]he work at the [employing establishment] field offices is extremely stressful.” 

Appellant also submitted an April 23, 2019 letter in which a licensed social worker from a private 

company discussed past counseling sessions that appellant had with the company’s providers

regarding “job-related concerns.”

Appellant submitted documents previously of record, including performance evaluation

ratings, positions descriptions, documents relating to EEOC matters, documents from a lawsuit 

she filed in U.S. District Court in 2019, and numerous emails regarding such matters as leave 

usage, training/mentoring, reasonable accommodation for medical conditions, and performance 

evaluation ratings. 

By decision dated March 28, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

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

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including the fact that the individual is an employee of the 

United States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was filed within the applicable time 

limitation, that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any 

disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the 

employment injury.6 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease. 7

5

See supra note 1.

6 A.J., Docket No. 18-1116 (issued January 23, 2019); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001).

7

20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e); M.K., Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April10, 2019); see T.O.,Docket No. 18-1012 (issued 

October 29, 2018); see Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).
6

To establish an emotional condition in the performance of duty, a claimant must submit: 

(1) factual evidence identifying an employment factor or incident alleged to have caused or 

contributed to his or her claimed emotional condition; (2) medical evidence establishing that he or 

she has a diagnosed emotional or psychiatric disorder; and (3) rationalized medical opinion 

evidence establishing that the accepted compensable employment factors are causally related to 

the diagnosed emotional condition.8

Workers’ compensation law does not apply to each and every injury or illness that is 

somehow related to an employee’s employment. There are situations where an injury or an illness 

has some connection with the employment, but nevertheless does not come within the concept or 

coverage of workers’ compensation. Where the disability results from an employee’s emotional 

reaction to his or her regular or specially assigned duties or to a requirement imposed by the 

employment, the disability comes within the coverage of FECA.9 On the other hand, the disability 

is not covered where it results from such factors as an employee’s fear of a reduction in force or 

his or her frustration from not being permitted to work in a particular environment or to hold a

particular position.10

A claimant has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, and 

substantial evidence that the condition for which he or she claims compensation was caused or 

adversely affected by employment factors.11 This burden includes the submission of a detailed 

description of the employment factors or conditions, which he or she believes caused or adversely 

affected a condition for which compensation is claimed, and a rationalized medical opinion 

relating the claimed condition to compensable employment factors.12

In cases involving emotional conditions, the Board has held that, when working conditions 

are alleged as factors in causing a condition or disability, OWCP, as part of its adjudicatory 

function, must make findings of fact regarding which working conditions are deemed compensable 

factors of employment and are to be considered by a physician when providing an opinion on 

causal relationship, and which working conditions are not deemed factors of employment and may 

not be considered.13 If a claimant does implicate a factor of employment, OWCP should then 

determine whether the evidence of record substantiates that factor. When the matter asserted is a 

compensable factor of employment and the evidence of record establishes the truth of the matter 

asserted, it must base its decision on an analysis of the medical evidence. 14

8

See S.K., Docket No. 18-1648 (issued March 14, 2019); M.C., Docket No. 14-1456 (issued December 24, 2014); 

Debbie J. Hobbs, 43 ECAB 135 (1991); Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730 (1990).

9 Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976).

10 A.E., Docket No. 18-1587 (issued March 13, 2019); Gregorio E. Conde, 52 ECAB 410 (2001).

11 B.S., Docket No. 19-0378 (issued July 10, 2019); Pamela R. Rice, 38 ECAB 838, 841 (1987).

12 P.B., Docket No. 17-1912 (issued December 28, 2018); Effie O. Morris, 44 ECAB 470, 473-74 (1993).

13 See O.G., Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August 7, 2019); Norma L. Blank, 43 ECAB 384, 389-90 (1992).

14 Id.
7

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that she 

sustained an emotional condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.

Appellant has alleged that she sustained an emotional condition as a result of a number of 

incidents regarding her supervisor and conditions at her workplace. OWCP denied her emotional 

condition claim finding that she had not established a compensable employment factor. The Board 

must, therefore, initially review whether these alleged incidents and conditions are compensable 

employment factors under the terms of FECA.15

The Board notes that some of appellant’s claims potentially implicate her regular or 

specially assigned duties under Lillian Cutler.

16

 Appellant asserted that she sustained an emotional 

condition because her job required her to service the public by performing a high volume of work 

at the front window, answering a steady stream of incoming telephone calls and written 

correspondence, processing mail/work listings, and implementing multiple employing 

establishment programs, policies, and procedures. However, the Board finds tha t she has not 

established an employment factor in this regard in that she only provided vague and general 

statements regarding her work duties, particularly with regard to the extent she performed each 

duty over time.

17

 In addition, the Board notes that appellant’s immediate supervisor, D.M., 

indicated that, although appellant alleged her workload was extremely backlogged, workload 

listings did not support this allegation. D.M. maintained that, during appellant’s many absences, 

coworkers processed her work. She further advised that appellant primarily met her deadlines and 

targets and that, on a rare occasion where a “case slipped through,” appellant did not face any 

adverse action. 

Appellant primarily claimed that management committed error and abuse with respect to 

various administrative/personnel matters, and that management subjected her to harassment and 

discrimination.

Appellant alleged that D.M. mishandled matters related to promotions, training, leave 

usage, management of work assignments, and criticism of work performance. She asserted that 

D.M. unfairly criticized her in December 2016 when she submitted a form to gain authorization to 

operate a private transportation business and that D.M. wrongly accused her of misplacing a form 

that a claimant had filed to appeal an agency decision. Appellant claimed that, in March 2017, 

D.M. and another supervisor isolated appellant from the rest of her work unit by first announcing 

an upcoming meeting to other service representatives. She asserted that, in April 2017, she 

expressed her concerns regarding the work environment to D.M. and another supervisor, but they 

did not address her concerns. Appellant claimed that, when she received a performance evaluation 

in April 2017, D.M. improperly told her thatshe needed to show more initiative. She asserted that, 

15 Y.W., Docket No. 19-1877 (issued April 30, 2020); Dennis J. Balogh, 52 ECAB 232 (2001).

16 See Lillian Cutler, supra note 10.

17 See Y.J.,Docket No. 15-1137 (issued October 4, 2016) (the Board noted that a claimant did not provide the 

requisite detail regarding specific dates and the duties she performed, which allegedly overwhelmed her and caused 

her stress).
8

on May 5, 2017, D.M. wrongly directed her to redo a work assignment and that, in July 2017, 

appellant unreasonably scrutinized how long she took for her lunch break and improperlycriticized 

her for several emails she sent regarding her mentoring of a trainee. Appellant alleged that, 

between August and December 2017, D.M. wrongly instructed appellant to use personal leave to 

address an EEOC matter which she believed to be employment related.

The Board has held that administrative and personnel matters, although generally related 

to the employee’s employment, are administrative functions of the employer rather than the regular 

or specially assigned work duties of the employee and are not covered under FECA. 18 However, 

the Board has also held that, where the evidence establishes error or abuse on the part of the 

employing establishment in what would otherwise be an administrative matter, coverage will be 

afforded.19 In determining whether the employing establishment has erred or acted abusively, the 

Board will examine the factual evidence of record to determine whether the employing 

establishment acted reasonably.20

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish the abovenoted claims about administrative/personnel matters. Appellantsubmitted emails and memoranda 

which concerned some of these administrative/personnel matters, but the communications did not 

show that the employing establishment committed error or abuse with respect to them. There is 

no indication in the case record that she obtained a final determination from an administrative body 

showing that the employing establishment committed the alleged error or abuse.21 Although 

appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the actions of several superiors, particularly with respect 

to D.M., the Board has held that mere dislike or disagreement with certain supervisory actions will 

not be compensable absent error or abuse on the part of the supervisor. 22 She submitted statements 

from three employing establishment employees who described their own alleged problems with 

D.M., but these statements would not establish an employment factor as they describe alleged 

actions or comments by D.M., which did not occur in appellant’s presence and were not directed 

towards her.23 Appellant has not substantiated error or abuse committed by the employing 

establishment in the above-noted matters and, therefore, she has not established a compensable 

employment factor with respect to administrative or personnel matters.

Appellant also alleged harassment and discrimination by coworkers and supervisors. She 

claimed that, after her local office management team changed in approximately November 2016, 

her work environment changed from being normal to being “completely hostile and intolerable.” 

Appellant asserted that the new management team embarrassed her in front of coworkers. She 

alleged that, in approximately October 2017, D.M. retaliated against her for filing an EEOC claim

18 T.L., Docket No. 18-0100 (issued June 20, 2019); MatildaR. Wyatt, 52 ECAB 421 (2001); Thomas D. McEuen, 

41 ECAB 387 (1990), reaff’d on recon., 42 ECAB 556 (1991).

19 M.S., Docket No. 19-1589 (issued October 7, 2020); William H. Fortner, 49 ECAB 324 (1998).

20 J.W., Docket No. 17-0999 (issued September 4, 2018); Ruth S. Johnson, 46 ECAB 237 (1994).

21 See M.R., Docket No. 18-0304 (issued November 13, 2018). 

22 T.C., Docket No. 16-0755 (issued December 13, 2016).

23 See C.L., Docket No. 14-0983 (issued January 23, 2015).
9

by “manipulating” her performance review. Appellant asserted that D.M. also spoke to appellant

in a harsh manner regarding appellant’sresponsibility for all training and development in her work 

unit. She alleged that, on approximately April 10, 2017, D.M. spoke loudly in a harsh tone in the 

middle of the office and questioned her as to whether she was going to work on her private business 

while she was at home on sick leave. Appellant further believed that D.M. had punitive intent 

when she indicated that she would determine her days off work. She maintained that, in early -

May 2017, D.M. unnecessarily embarrassed appellant in front of coworkers about a minor error, 

and also rudely banged on her computer and told her to “check her mail” for no apparent reason.

To the extent that disputes and incidents alleged as constituting harassment are established 

as occurring and arising from an employee’s performance of his or her regular duties, these could 

constitute employment factors.24 The Board has held that unfounded perceptions of harassment 

do not constitute an employment factor.25 Mere perceptions are not compensable under FECA and 

harassment can constitute a factor of employment if it is shown that the incidents constituting the 

claimed harassment actually occurred.26 

Appellant did not submit corroborative evidence in support of her allegations regarding the 

claimed instances of harassment and discrimination. She did not submit witness statements or 

other documentary evidence demonstrating that the alleged harassment and discrimination 

occurred as alleged.27 Appellant failed to submit the findings of any complaint or grievance,which 

demonstrates that management committed harassment and discrimination. In fact, the case record 

contains an August 27, 2018 EEOC decision finding that the employing establishment had not 

subjected her to harassment or discrimination. With respect to appellant’s claims that D.M. and 

other officials made harassing and discriminatory comments, appellant failed to submit probative 

evidence supporting these claims.28 Appellant submitted emails and memoranda which concerned 

some of the claimed actions which she believed constituted harassment and discrimination, but the 

communications did not show any evidence that the employing establishment committed such 

actions. Therefore, she has not established a compensable employment factor with respect to the 

claimed harassment and discrimination.

As the Board finds that appellant has not established a compensable employment factor, it 

is not necessary to consider the medical evidence of record. 29

24 D.B., Docket No. 18-1025 (issued January 23, 2019); David W. Shirey, 42 ECAB 783, 795-96 (1991).

25 See F.K., Docket No. 17-0179 (issued July 11, 2017).

26 See id.

27 See B.S., Docket No. 19-0378 (issued July 10, 2018).

28 See generally L.C., Docket No. 20-0461 (issued June 2, 2021).

29 See B.O., Docket No. 17-1986 (issued January 18, 2019)(finding that it is not necessary to consider the medical 

evidence of record if a claimant has not established any compensable employment factors). See also Margaret S. 

Krzycki, 43 ECAB 496, 502-03 (1992).
10

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. 30

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.31

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.32 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

and reviews the case on its merits.33 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.34

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

evidence or argument already in the case record35 and the submission of evidence or argument which 

does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case. 36 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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).

30 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see 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).

31 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see M.S., Docket No. 18-1041 (issued October 25, 2018); L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 

(issued March 3, 2010); C.N., Docket No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008).

32 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.

33 Id. at § 10.608(a); see D.C., Docket No. 19-0873 (issued January 27, 2020); M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

34 Id. at § 10.608(b); see T.V., Docket No. 19-1504 (issued January 23, 2020); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued 

March 18, 2010).

35 N.L., Docket No. 18-1575 (issued April 3, 2019); Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984).

36 M.K., Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April 10, 2019); Edward Matthew Diekemper; 31 ECAB 224-25 (1979).
11

On November 28, 2021 appellant filed a timely request for reconsideration of a 

November 9, 2021 decision.

37

 The Board finds, however, that she did not establish that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law, and did not advance a relevant legal 

argument not previously considered by OWCP. Appellant argued that she established employment 

factors with respect to harassment/discrimination by supervisors, wrongdoing by management in

administrative matters, and stressful work duties. However, the submission of this argument does 

not warrant a review of appellant’s claim on the merits because OWCP had previously considered 

and rejected this argument when it denied her claim. The Board has held that the submission of 

evidence or argument which repeats or duplicates evidence or argument already in the case record 

does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.

38

 Appellant, therefore, is not entitled to a review 

of the merits of her claim based on either the first or second above-noted requirements under 

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

The underlying issue is whether appellant has established an employment factor. She 

submitted a November 21, 2021 statement from a coworker who noted that she had been informed

by an unspecified person that work-related stress was the cause of appellant having taken extended 

leave. The coworker noted, “[t]he work at the [employing establishment] filed offices is extremely 

stressful.” Although the coworker mentioned appellant’s work stress, the statement would not be 

relevant to the underlying basis of the denial of appellant’s claim, i.e., appellant’s failure to 

establish an employment factor, because the comments regarding work stress made by the 

coworker are vague and general in nature. The submission of this statement does not warrant a 

review of appellant’s claim on the merits because the Board has held that the submission of 

evidence or argument which does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a 

basis for reopening a case.39 Appellant also submitted an April 23, 2019 letter in which a licensed 

social worker from a private company discussed past counseling sessions that appellant had with 

the company’s providers regarding “job-related concerns.” However, the submission of this 

document also would not constitute a basis for reopening appellant’s case because it does not 

provide support for her specific claimed employment factors and thus is not relevant to the 

underlying issue of the case.

Appellant submitted documents that had previously been submitted to OWCP, including 

performance evaluation ratings, positions descriptions, documents from a lawsuit she filed in U.S. 

District Court in 2019, and numerous emails regarding such matters as leave usage, 

training/mentoring, reasonable accommodation for medical conditions, and performance 

evaluation ratings. However, her resubmission of these already considered documents would not 

require OWCP to conduct a merit review because, as noted above, the Board has held that the 

submission of evidence or argument which repeats or duplicates evidence or argument already in the 

case record does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.40 As appellant has not provided relevant 

37 See J.F., Docket No. 16-1233 (issued November 23, 2016).

38 See supra note 37.

39 See supra note 38.

40 See supra note 37.
12

and pertinent new evidence, she is not entitled to a merit review based on the third above-noted 

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

The Board, accordingly, finds that appellant did 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 her burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged. The Board finds that OWCP properly denied her

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THATthe March 28, 2022 and November 9, 2021 decisions

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: June 2, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board