Printing - FECA-PT2 - National Association of Letter Carriers

percentage of the award under the Sixth Edition is not required. Should the later
calculation result in a percentage impairment lower than the original award (as sometimes
occurs), a finding should be made that the claimant has no more than the percentage of
impairment originally awarded, that the evidence does not establish an increased
impairment, and that the Office has no basis for declaring an overpayment.
2-1602-6 Prima Facie Denials
6. Non-merit Review/Denial (without review on the merits). A timely application for review, which is
not supported by additional evidence or argument for error in fact or law is insufficient to warrant a merit
review of the case. According to 20 C.F.R. §10.608, in such instances the SrCE should prepare a letter
decision denying the application. The claimant’s only appeal from this decision is to request a review by
the ECAB.
a. Original Denial Issued After June 1, 1987. If the time limit has not expired, the claimant
may again request reconsideration within one year from the date of the original decision, or from
any merit decision including a denial of modification, or from ECAB decision on the merits.
b. Original Denial Issued Before June1, 1987. The cover letter or appeal rights attached to the
decision should include a notice of the one-year time limitation for requesting reconsideration.
Thereafter, the claimant would have one year from the decision denying the application to again
request reconsideration of the contested decision.
2-1602-7 Evaluating Sufficiency of Evidence
7. Evaluating Sufficiency of Evidence. When the request for reconsideration is accompanied by new
evidence, the SrCE must determine whether it is sufficient to review the case on its merits. This step
often requires study of the file to assess what material it already contains. Such examination should not
be confused with merit review of the case.
a. Nature of Evidence. The following kinds of evidence are not sufficient to reopen the claim for
merit review:
(1) Cumulative evidence, which is substantially similar to material on file which, has
already been considered. Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000)(Doctor's
reports were similar to previously submitted reports).
(2) Repetitious evidence, which consists of copies of documents previously
submitted or a restatement of previously considered evidence. David J. McDonald, 50
ECAB 185, 190(1998) (Documents previously considered by the Office).
(3) Irrelevant or immaterial evidence which has no bearing on the issue or which is
frivolous or inconsequential in regard to the issue. Linda I. Sprague, 49 ECAB 386 (1997).
The SrCE should use caution in characterizing medical evidence as "cumulative" or "irrelevant." A
rationalized supporting statement from a physician not previously of record requires a merit review
when the denial rested on medical issues. However, a checked “yes” on a form report would not
require a merit review just because it was from a new physician.
FECA-PT2 Printed: 06/08/2010 679