Printing - FECA-PT2 - National Association of Letter Carriers

of the merits. While a reopening of a case may be predicated solely on a legal premise not
previously considered, such reopening for further review on the merits is not required where the
legal contention does not have a reasonable color of validity. See Cleopatra McDougal-Saddler, 50
ECAB 367 (1999); Constance G. Mills, 40 ECAB 317 (1988). Also, see generally Daniel O’Toole, 1
ECAB 107 (1948), which indicates that that which is offered as an application should contain at
least the assertion of an adequate legal premise, or the proffer of proof, or the attachment of a
report or other form of written evidence, material to the kind of decision which the applicant
expects to receive as the result of his application for reconsideration. Furthermore, this ECAB
decision proposes that if the argument advanced is one of law, it should have some reasonable
color of validity to establish the application as sufficient on its face. Or,
c. New Evidence (not previously considered by OWCP) Which is Relevant to the Issue Upon
Denial. [See 20 CFR 606 (b) (2) (iii)]. For example, the submission of a witness statement would
be considered relevant if the claim had been denied because fact of injury had not been
established. Such a statement would not be relevant if the claim had been denied because the
claimant had not submitted medical evidence addressing causal relationship. See Edward Matthew
Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224 (1979) (new evidence which is submitted but is irrelevant to the
pertinent issue is not sufficient to reopen the case on the merits). If the new medical reports are
repetitious and cumulative of evidence previously submitted, they have no evidentiary value and
do not constitute a basis for reopening the claimant’s case. Bruce E. Martin, 35 ECAB 1090,
1093-94; Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393 (1984). Evidence that is essentially duplicative (such as a
duplicative narrative) does not form a basis for reopening a claim. See James W. Scott, 55 ECAB
606 (2004).
Any claimant or representative who wishes to review the file during the reconsideration process should be
permitted to do so, and should be allowed a reasonable time up to 30 days to submit additional new
information in support of the reconsideration request before a decision is reached. However, the request
to submit additional new evidence should not be used to extend the 1-year regulatory period within which
a reconsideration request can be made.
2-1602-5 Special Evidence or Argument
5. Special evidence or Argument.
a. CA-1032 or CA-12 When Compensation Has Been Suspended. If compensation was
suspended for failure to provide timely reports concerning the status of dependents, the
beneficiary may request a reconsideration accompanied by a completed Form CA-1032 or
CA-12. In this case, the CE who initially sent the form may act on the reconsideration by
vacating the decision and restoring benefits.
b. Argument for Error in Schedule Award Cases. OWCP adopted the Third Edition of the
AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment effective March 8, 1989; the
revised Third Edition of the Guides effective September 1, 1991; the Fourth Edition effective
November 1, 1993; the Fifth Edition effective February 1, 2001; and the Sixth Edition
effective May 1, 2009. Any recalculations of previous awards which result from
Reconsideration decisions issued on or after May 1, 2009 should be based on the Sixth
Edition of the Guides. However, if the percentage of the award is affirmed but the case is
remanded for further development of some other issue, i.e. pay rate, recalculation of the
FECA-PT2 Printed: 06/08/2010 678