United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, McFARLAND POST 

OFFICE, McFarland, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1306

Issued: January 11, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 September 13, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 6, 2022 nonmerit 

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

elapsed since OWCP’s last merit decision, dated March 1, 2022, to the filing of this appeal, 

pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of this case.

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 December 1, 2021 appellant, then a 51-year-old rural carrier associate, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed carpal tunnel syndrome due 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

to factors of her federal employment, including repetitive casing, handling, and delivering of mail. 

She noted that she first became aware of her condition on June 30, 2021 and realized its relation 

to her federal employment on July 27, 2021. 

In a July 27, 2021 report, Dr. David A. Daiga, a Board-certified neurologist, related that 

appellant had sustained injuries during an October 25, 2020 work-related motor vehicle accident. 

He advised that she had a secondary complaint of bilateral hand pain and numbness, which a 

July 27, 2021 electromyography (EMG) confirmed was bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. 

Dr. Daiga concluded that appellant’s bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was the result of years of 

repetitive work-related activities. 

In a development letter dated December 8, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim, and requested additional medical evidence, including a well-rationalized 

medical report from a physician, which provided an opinion as to how the reported employment 

activities caused or aggravated her claimed medical condition. It afforded her 30 days to submit 

the necessary evidence. 

Appellant submitted a December 27, 2021 narrative statement wherein she described her 

repetitive employment duties and a December 13, 2021 report from Dr. Daiga. In the report,

Dr. Daiga noted her employment duties and symptoms. He opined that appellant’s bilateral carpal 

tunnel syndrome, proven on EMG testing, was the direct result of repetitive activities such as mail 

sorting performed in her federal employment. An undated copy of her nerve conduction studies, 

which Dr. Daiga indicated demonstrated bilateral moderate median neuropathies, was also 

provided. 

By decision dated March 1, 2022, OWCP denied the claim, finding that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between the diagnosed 

condition and the accepted employment factors. 

On May 4, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration. In support thereof, she submitted 

July 27, 2021 progress notes, wherein Dr. Daiga again diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome 

due to her repetitive work-related activities, and a July 27, 2021 EMG study. Appellant also 

resubmitted copies of Dr. Daiga’s July 27 and December 13, 2021 reports, previously of record. 

By decision dated May 6, 2022, 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.2 OWCP has discretionary authority in this regard and has imposed certain 

2 This section provides in pertinent part: the Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against payment of 

compensation at any time on his own motion or on application. 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
3

limitations in exercising its authority.3 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.4

A timely request 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.5 When a timely request 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.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).

In her request for reconsideration, appellant did not establish that OWCP erroneously 

applied or interpreted a specific point of law, nor did she advance a relevant legal argument not 

previously considered by OWCP.7 Consequently, she is not entitled to a review of the merits of 

her claim based on the first and second above-noted requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).8

On reconsideration, appellant resubmitted Dr. Daiga’s July 27 and December 13, 2021 

reports previously of record and considered by OWCP in its March 1, 2022 merit decision. The 

Board has held that the submission of evidence which repeats or duplicates evidence already in 

the case record does not constitute a basis for reopening a case. 9 Appellant also submitted

Dr. Daiga’s July 27, 2021 progress notes. These progress notes, however, are substantially similar 

to his July 27, 2021 report.10 This evidence, therefore, does not constitute a basis for reopening a 

3

20 C.F.R. § 10.607.

4

Id. at § 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.

5

Id. at § 10.606(b)(3).

6

Id. at § 10.608(a) (b).

7

See T.B., Docket No. 18-1214 (issued January 29, 2019);C.B.,Docket No. 08-1583 (issued December 9, 2008).

8

Id.

9

See A.G., Docket No. 19-0113 (issued July 12, 2019); L.R., Docket No. 18-0400 (issued August 24, 2018);

T.B., Docket No. 18-0033 (issued May 23, 2018); EugeneF. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984).

10 See R.M., Docket No. 08-2084 (issued April7, 2009); James A. Long, 40 ECAB 538 (1989); SusanM. Biles, 40 

ECAB 420 (1988); Eugene F. Butler, id.
4

case.11 OWCP also received a July 27, 2021 EMG study. However, the underlying issue in this 

case is whether appellant’s diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is causally related to her 

accepted employment duties. That is a medical issue which must be addressed by relevant medical 

evidence.12 The Board has held that diagnostic studies, standing alone, lack probative value on 

the issue of causal relationship as they do not address whether an employment incident caused the 

diagnosed condition.13 Thus, the July 27, 2021 EMG study is, therefore, irrelevant and does not 

constitute a basis for reopening the claim as it does not address the particular issue involved.14 

Because appellant’s request for reconsideration did not include relevant and pertinent new 

evidence not previously considered, she is not entitled to a review of the merits based on the third 

requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).15

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.

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).

11 Id.

12 See A.M., Docket No. 18-1033 (issued January 8, 2019); see also Bobbie F. Cowart, 55 ECAB 746 (2004).

13 C.M., Docket No. 21-0004 (issued May 24, 2021); K.R., Docket No. 20-1103 (issued January 5, 2021); F.S., 

Docket No. 19-0205 (issued June 19, 2019); A.B., Docket No. 17-0301 (issued May 19, 2017).

14 See K.D., Docket No. 22-0756 (issued November 29, 2022); K.B., Docket No. 18-1392 (issued January 15, 2019); 

Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224-25(1979).

15 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3)(iii); see M.C.,Docket No. 18-0841 (issued September 13, 2019);D.P.,Docket No. 17-

0290 (issued May 14, 2018).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 6, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 11, 2023

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