U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment Standards Administration

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

1111 Third Avenue, Suite 650

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 553-5508

FAX (206) 553-4629

 

April 18, 2001

 

A14-282174

 

Robert F. Farmer

411 Pinewood Dr. N.E.

Bremerton, WA 98310

 

Dear Mr. Farmer:

 

I have reviewed your application for reconsideration seeking modification of the 1-17-01 decision. The request of review and the evidence submitted in support there have been examined. The request has been denied for the reasons set forth in the enclosed Memorandum to the File dated 4-18-01.

Should you disagree with this decision, you may follow your avenue of appeal outlined in the enclosed sheet.

Sincerely,

 

Pam Michaelson

Senior Claims Examiner

 

Enclosure(s)

 

cc:        PSNS

April 18, 2001

 

A14-282174

FARMER, Robert F.

 

MEMORANDUM TO THE FILE:

 

Question To Be Resolved:

 

The question for determination is whether the claimant has submitted sufficient evidence in support of his application for reconsideration to warrant review of the case on its merits under 5 USC 8128.

Discussion:

 

By letter decision dated 3-29-00 incorporating MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR of the same date, the office found the claimant had failed to file the claim in this instance under the applicable time limitation provisions of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.

 

Mr. Farmer disagreed with this determination and on 4-10-00 requested and oral hearing. By decision dated 1-17-01, Hearings & Review affirmed the determination dated 3-29-00.

 

The claimant then disagreed with the 4-10-00 decision and on 3-10-01 requested a reconsideration.

 

Under 20 CFR 10.606(b)(2), the application for reconsideration, including all supporting documents, must set forth arguments and contain evidence that either the office erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law, by advancing a relevant legal argument not previously considered by the office, or by submitting relevant and pertinent evidence not previously considered by the office. Section 10.608(b) provides that where the request is timely, but fails to meet at least one of the standards described in 10.606(b)(2) or the request is untimely and fails to present any clear evidence of error, the office will deny the application for reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on the merits.

 

In this instance, review of the case on its merits under 5 USC 8128 is not warranted as new evidence pertinent to the issue at hand has not been proffered.

 

It is first noted that attached to Mr. Farmer’s 3-10-01 reconsideration request were 26 pages of documents pertaining presumably to a harassment complaint filed by another individual. These documents have no direct correlation to Mr. Farmer’s claim for occupationally-induced leukemia nor are they referenced in his 3-10-01 request. These documents pertain to circumstances within the Department of Veteran Affairs. They have no pertinence to the claim at hand and will not be further discussed.

 

With the 3-10-01 reconsideration request, Mr. Farmer presents new evidence. To counter statements made by his former employer in an 11-14-00 letter, the claimant references leave and earning statements to reflect he was in a work status during pay periods ending 12-11-93, 12-25-93, and 2-19-94. However, these leave and earning statements are not enclosed.

 

The claimant gives the details of his last date of employment on or about 4-7-94. He was presented an award that day by The Combat Systems Chief Engineer. The award certificate was dated 3-25-94 and Mr. Farmer notes it as an enclosure; however, the award certificate was not enclosed. Mr. Farmer asserts he was not in terminal status pending disability retirement until at least 2-18-94. He references enclosures of:

 

·        Shipyard notice dated 2-18-94

·        OPM letter dated 2-19-94

·        OPM letter dated 3-21-94/postmarked 3-29-94

 

However, as with the above referenced leave and earning statements, the notice and letters were not enclosed with the 3-10-01 reconsideration request.

 

Mr. Farmer argues the Navy maintains special medical records for all Shipyard Nuclear Workers. When he reported his cancer in 1993, he as removed from the Nuclear Qualified roles. The medical staff told him they were required by regulation to know who has cancer and to remove them from the Qualified Nuclear Worker list. Presumably, Mr. Farmer has referenced this event to annotate the fact his former employer was reasonably aware of his illness in 1993; however, no documentation was provided by the claimant to substantiate this assertion.

 

Therefore, in view of the failure on Mr. Farmer’s part to actually enclose all the documents he references as “new evidence” and the fact several unrelated documents pertinent to a Department of Veterans Affairs’ harassment complaint were enclosed, review of the case on its merits under 5 USC 8128 is not warranted as no new medical evidence has actually been proffered.

 

Conclusion:

 

I find the application for reconsideration should be disallowed as it is insufficient to warrant review of the case on its merits under 5 USC 8128.

 

Pam Michaelson

Senior Claims Examiner

Return to claim page