United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, TAMPA POST 

OFFICE, Tampa, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0875

Issued: January 4, 2024

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 15, 2023 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a May 22, 2023 

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the 

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

Federal Employees’Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

has 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

This case has previously been before the Board.4 The facts and circumstances of the case 

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

are as follows.

On July 9, 2015 appellant, then a 50-year-old retired letter sorting machine (LSM) 

operator, manual clerk, and automation operator, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) 

alleging that she developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome due to factors of her federal 

employment. She noted that she first became aware of her claimed condition on July 25, 2013,

and realized its relationship to her federal employment on April 15, 2015. On the reverse side of 

the claim form, an employing establishment personnel official advised that appellant retired on 

disability effective March 26, 2001. The official reported that appellant first notified a supervisor 

about her claimed injury on August 11, 2015.

In a June 16, 2015 statement, appellant asserted that her claimed bilateral upper extremity 

condition developed over years of working at the employing establishment. She reported that she 

first began having problems with her hands on July 25, 2013, but was not conclusively diagnosed 

with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome until April 15, 2015. Appellant advised that her work duties 

as an LSM operator involved pushing/pulling heavy containers weighing approximately 600 

pounds, removing trays from letter cages, dropping mail on a ledge, pulling mail down by reaching 

overhead, and bending down to place sleeves on mail trays. She also described her other work 

duties, which involved casing mail, moving containers, grasping handfuls of mail/magazines, 

bundling mail, filling mail trays, pushing/pulling cages, throwing bundles of magazines weighing 

15 to 25 pounds into bins, and picking up and throwing sacks weighing in excess of 120 pounds.

Appellant submitted an April 16, 2015 electromyogram and nerve conduction velocity 

(EMG/NCV) study, which was deemed to be suggestive of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. In

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that, following the May 22, 2023 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP 

and on appeal to the Board. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedures 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.

4 Docket No. 18-0164 (issued May 23, 2018); Docket No. 19-1954 (issued March1, 2021); Docket No. 22-0038 

(issued June 6, 2022).
3

an August 27, 2015 statement, appellant’s former supervisor provided a description of appellant’s 

work duties, which was similar to that provided by appellant in her June 16, 2015 statement.

By decisions dated September 24, 2015 and July 1, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, 

finding that it was untimely filed. 

Appellant subsequently requested reconsideration. By decision dated August 18, 2017, 

OWCP denied her June 23, 2017 request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

Appellant appealed to the Board. By decision dated May 23, 2018, the Board set aside the 

August 18, 2017 decision, finding that she had presented a new and relevant legal argument on 

reconsideration. The Board remanded the case to OWCP for a merit review to be followed by the 

issuance of an appropriate decision.5

By decision dated August 14, 2018, OWCP modified its prior decision, finding that 

appellant had filed a timely occupational disease claim alleging a bilateral upper extremity injury 

and had established employment factors in the form of the repetitive motion required by her work 

duties. However, appellant’s claim remained denied because the medical evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted 

employment factors. 

Appellant subsequently submitted a November 27, 2018 report from Dr. Robert R. Reppy, 

an osteopath Board-certified in family medicine, who noted that she reported sustaining bilateral 

carpal tunnel syndrome due to years of repetitive keying on a mail sorting machine, casing mail, 

and pushing/pulling heavy equipment while working for the employing establishment. Dr. Reppy 

indicated that appellant had a positive Tinel’s sign and negative Phalen’s sign bilaterally and

diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.

On July 29, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the August 14, 

2018 decision. 

In support thereof, appellant submitted a July 11, 2019 report, wherein Dr. Reppy noted 

her claim that years of repetitive motion keying on an LSM, casing mail, and pushing/pulling 

heavy equipment had damaged her wrists and hands. Dr. Reppy discussed her upper extremity 

symptoms and indicated that she had no prior history of similar symptoms. He noted that a July 1, 

2016 EMG/NCV study of appellant’s upper extremities, which demonstrated conduction latency 

in both median nerves, was pathognomonic for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Reppy

advised that, upon physical examination, she had a positive Tinel’s sign and Phalen’s test findings,

which were correlates of carpal tunnel syndrome. He opined that, “[t]he patient’s injury was 

caused by her [workplace] while she was in performance of her duties at the [employing 

establishment].” Dr. Reppy explained that the repetitive nature of appellant’s lifting, keying, and 

sorting tasks at work caused the damage to her median nerves over time. He maintained that these 

tasks were a common and well-understood cause of carpal tunnel syndrome, noting that the 

medical literature was replete with similar cases. Dr. Reppy indicated that the medical literature 

5 Docket No. 18-0164 (issued May 23, 2018).
4

found high prevalence rates and relative risks for carpal tunnel syndrome in a number of jobs 

involving repetitive gripping. He noted, “[r]epetitive gripping is precisely the action required of 

[appellant] in her employment as an LSM operator, and she did it for years.” (Emphasis in the 

original.) Dr. Reppy further advised that carpal tunnel syndrome was comprised of sensory and 

motor features in the median nerve distribution of the hand, including delayed nerve conduction 

and gradual onset of numbness/tingling and pain in that distribution. He indicated, “[t]his exactly 

matches the symptomatology reported by this patient.” Dr. Reppy noted that conditions that 

decreased the carpal tunnel’s size, or swelled the structures in the tunnel, served to compress the 

median nerve against the transverse ligament bounding the tunnel’s roof. He maintained that such 

circumstances could arise traumatically, as was the case for appellant. Dr. Reppy advised that 

carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by extreme flexion/extension of the wrist, which increased the 

pressure in the carpal tunnel sufficiently to impair blood perfusion of the median nerve. He found 

that the same mechanism applied in appellant’s case. Dr. Reppy concluded that her upper 

extremity injury was caused by her postal duties and indicated that his opinion was “based on my 

medical experience, objective evidence, and my examination of the patient.”

By decision dated August 27, 2019, OWCP modified its August 14, 2018 decision to find 

that appellant had submitted medical evidence diagnosing a medical condition in connection with 

the accepted employment factors; however, the claim remained denied as the medical evidence of 

record evidence was insufficient to establish a bilateral upper extremity condition causally related 

to the accepted employment factors. Appellant appealed to the Board and, by decision dated 

March 1, 2021, the Board affirmed OWCP’s August 27, 2019 decision.6

On June 15 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. Appellant 

submitted an April 29, 2021 report in which Dr. Reppy maintained that OWCP was in error when 

it “stated that [it] had not received a medical report explaining the chain of causation for the upper 

extremity conditions of [appellant], thus triggering a denial.” Dr. Reppy asserted that he had 

established the chain of causation in his previously submitted July 11, 2019 report and then 

provided the text of that report.

By decision dated September 8, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim, finding that she had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish a bilateral upper 

extremity condition causally related to the accepted employment factors. Appellant appealed to 

the Board and, by decision dated June 6, 2022, the Board affirmed OWCP’s September 8, 2021 

decision.7

Appellant subsequently submitted an August 15, 2022 photoplethysmography, which 

recorded appellant’s heart rate, as well as her physical stress, mental stress, and stress resistance. 

In an August 15, 2022 report, Dr. Reppy indicated that the Board had denied appellant’s workers’

compensation case despite his belief that he had provided sufficient objective evidence to establish 

her case. He detailed physical examination findings and diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel 

syndrome. 

6 Docket No. 19-1954 (issued March 1, 2021).

7 Docket No. 22-0038 (issued June 6, 2022).
5

Appellant also submitted a November 23, 2022 report, wherein Dr. Reppy indicated that a 

July 1, 2016 EMG/NCV study of appellant’s upper extremities demonstrating conduction latency

in both median nerves was pathognomonic for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, thereby 

confirming she definitely had the condition. Dr. Reppy advised that, upon physical examination, 

appellant had a positive Tinel’s sign and Phalen’s test findings, which also were pathognomonic 

for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. He indicated that the medical literature found high prevalence 

rates and relative risks for carpal tunnel syndrome in a number of jobs involving repetitive 

gripping. Dr. Reppy noted, “[r]epetitive gripping is precisely the action required of [appellant] in 

her employment as an LSM operator, and she did it for years.” (Emphasis in the original.) He

further advised that carpal tunnel syndrome was comprised of sensory and motor features in the 

median nerve distribution of the hand, including delayed nerve conduction and gradual onset of 

numbness/tingling and pain in that distribution. Dr. Reppy indicated, “[t]his exactly matches the 

symptomatology reported by this patient.” He noted that conditions that decreased the carpal 

tunnel’s size, or swelled the structures in the tunnel, served to compress the median nerve against 

the transverse ligament bounding the tunnel’s roof. Dr. Reppy maintained that such circumstances 

could arise traumatically, as was the case for appellant. He advised that carpal tunnel syndrome 

was caused by extreme flexion/extension of the wrist, which increased the pressure in the carpal 

tunnel sufficiently to impair blood perfusion of the median nerve. Dr. Reppy found that the same 

mechanism applied in appellant’s case. He concluded that appellant’s upper extremity injury was 

caused by her postal duties and indicated that his opinion was “based on my medical experience, 

objective evidence, and my examination of the patient.”

On February 21, 2023 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. 

Appellant subsequently submitted an April 4, 2023 report, wherein Dr. Reppy asserted that 

appellant’s workers’ compensation case “was wrongly closed and deserves to be reopened.”

Dr. Reppy noted that he had not conducted a physical examination and diagnosed bilateral carpal 

tunnel syndrome.

By decision dated May 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 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.8

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 

8

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).
6

OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by 

OWCP.9

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.10 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

and reviews the case on its merits.11 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.12

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

evidence or argument already in the case record13 and the submission of evidence or argument which 

does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case. 14

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).

On February 21, 2023 appellant filed a request for reconsideration following the Board’s 

June 22, 2022 decision. The Board finds, however, that she neither established that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law, nor did she advance a relevant legal 

argument not previously considered by OWCP. Accordingly, the Board finds that appellant is not 

entitled to a review of the merits based on either the first or second above-noted requirements

under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).

In support of her request for reconsideration, appellant submitted a November 23, 2022 

report, wherein Dr. Reppy discussed the signs/symptoms of her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome

and indicated that the medical literature found high prevalence rates and relative risks for carpal 

tunnel syndrome in a number of jobs involving repetitive gripping. Dr. Reppy noted, “[r]epetitive 

gripping is precisely the action required of [appellant] in her employment as an LSM operator, and 

she did it for years.” (Emphasis in the original.) He advised that carpal tunnel syndrome was 

comprised of sensory and motor features in the median nerve distribution of the hand, including 

9

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).

10 20 C.F.R. § 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 (September 2020).

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

12 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).

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

14 M.K., Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April10, 2019); Edward Matthew Diekemper; 31 ECAB 224, 225 (1979).
7

delayed nerve conduction and gradual onset of numbness/tingling and pain in that distribution. 

Dr. Reppy indicated, “[t]his exactly matches the symptomatology reported by this patient.” He

then further discussed the mechanism of how carpal tunnel syndrome occurred and found that the 

same mechanism applied in appellant’s case. Dr. Reppy concluded that appellant’s upper 

extremity injury was caused by her postal duties and indicated that his opinion was “based on my 

medical experience, objective evidence, and my examination of the patient.”

However, the Board findsthat the submission of this report ofDr. Reppy would not require 

the reopening of appellant’s case for merit review because it is substantially similar to previously 

submitted reports of Dr. Reppy, which were previously considered by OWCP in denying 

appellant’s claim. As noted above, the Board has held that the submission of evidence or argument 

which repeats or duplicates evidence or argument already of case record does not constitute a basis 

for reopening a case.15

Appellant also submitted an August 15, 2022 report wherein Dr. Reppy diagnosed bilateral 

carpal tunnel syndrome and indicated that the Board had denied appellant’s workers’compensation 

case despite his belief that he had provided sufficient objective evidence. In an April 4, 2023 

report, Dr. Reppy diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and asserted that appellant’s 

workers’ compensation case “was wrongly closed and deserves to be reopened.” However, this 

evidence is also substantially similar to previously submitted reports of Dr. Reppy regarding his 

belief that appellant sustained an occupational injury to her upper extremities.

16

Appellant also submitted an August 15, 2022 photoplethysmography, which recorded her

heart rate, as well as her physical stress, mental stress, and stress resistance. However, this 

evidence is irrelevant to the underlying issue of the case because it does not contain an opinion on 

causal relationship between the diagnosed upper extremity condition(s) and the accepted 

employment factors. As noted above, 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.

17

 Therefore, appellant is not entitled to further review of the merits of her claim 

based on the third above-noted requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

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.

15 See supra note 12.

16 Id.

17 See supra note 13.
8

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 May 22, 2023 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 4, 2024

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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