J.M. and U.S. Postal Service, Post Office, Corpus Christi, TX (Board decision, May 13, 2013)

ECAB remand decision. The Board set aside OWCP’s June 25, 2012 denial and remanded for a new decision on J.M.’s claimed recurrence of disability. OWCP still must decide whether the claimed recurrence relates to his accepted 2008 injury. A party may petition the Board for reconsideration within 30 days of issuance unless this order specifies another period, under 20 C.F.R. § 501.7(a).

Plain-English summary

J.M., a postal building equipment mechanic, sought benefits for a recurrence of an accepted 2008 elbow and shoulder injury. OWCP converted his recurrence filing into new occupational disease claims and denied them. The Board found the basis of the denial unclear because OWCP had not decided the recurrence claim he filed. It directed OWCP to combine the related case records and decide whether his claimed October 2008 disability was caused by the accepted injury.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 20 C.F.R. § 10.126, requiring OWCP decisions to give findings and reasons.
• Outcome: June 25, 2012 denial set aside; recurrence claim remanded for a new decision.
• Key point: OWCP had to decide the recurrence claim presented, using both related case files.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
J.M., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 13-09
) Issued: May 13, 2013
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
)
Corpus Christi, TX, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Douglas Sughrue, Esq., for the appellant
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:
RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge
MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge

On October 1, 2012 appellant, through his attorney, filed a timely appeal from a June 25, 2012 Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’ (OWCP) merit decision which denied his claim for an employment-related injury. The Board docketed the appeal as No. 13-09.

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that the case is not in posture for decision.

On January 26, 2010 appellant, then a 54-year-old building equipment mechanic, filed a Form CA-2a alleging that he sustained a recurrence of a May 5, 2008 employment injury on October 10, 2008. Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx613, OWCP had accepted appellant’s claim for contusion of the right elbow and calcifying tendinitis of the right shoulder causally related to a motor vehicle accident in the performance of duty on May 5, 2008. By letters dated March 29, 2010, OWCP converted appellant’s notice of recurrence to occupational disease claims for carpal tunnel syndrome and an upper back condition. By decision dated April 29, 2010, OWCP denied the newly created occupational disease claim finding that the evidence of record failed to establish the medical component of fact of injury.1 By decision dated June 13, 2011, OWCP denied modification of the April 29, 2010 decision on the basis that the medical evidence failed to establish causal relationship between appellant’s condition and factors of his federal employment. By decision dated June 25, 2012, OWCP denied modification of the June 13, 2011 decision on the grounds that the medical evidence submitted was not sufficient to establish causal relationship.

Decisions of OWCP shall contain findings of fact and a statement of reasons.2 The Board finds that the basis on which OWCP denied appellant’s claim is unclear and thus the Board is unable to render an informed decision in this case. The record contains evidence of appellant’s attempt to file a claim for a recurrence of a May 5, 2008 employment injury which was accepted by OWCP under File No. xxxxxx613. However, OWCP continued to adjudicate the claim as new occupational disease claims. Consequently, the case will be remanded for OWCP to combine the current case record with File No. xxxxxx613 and properly adjudicate the issue of whether appellant has established a recurrence of disability on October 10, 2008 causally related to the May 5, 2008 employment injury.3 Following this and such other development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

1
On May 25, 2010 appellant, through his attorney, requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing representative. In an August 16, 2010 letter, appellant’s attorney requested withdrawal of the oral hearing scheduled for August 18, 2010 at 12:00 p.m. By decision dated August 25, 2010, OWCP granted appellant’s request for withdrawal of the hearing. 2 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.126.
3
See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, File Maintenance and Management, Chapter 2.400.8 (February 2000). Under 2.400.8(c), cases should be doubled when correct adjudication of the issues depends on frequent cross-reference between files, including: (1) a new injury case is reported for an employee who previously filed an injury claim for a similar condition or the same part of the body. For instance, a claimant with an existing case for a back strain submits a new claim for a herniated lumbar disc; (2) two or more separate injuries (not recurrences) have occurred on the same date; and (3) adjudication or other processing will require frequent reference to a case which does not involve a similar condition or the same part of the body. For instance, an employee with an existing claim for carpal tunnel syndrome files a new claim for a mental condition which has overlapping periods of disability.

2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 25, 2012 Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs decision is set aside and the case remanded for further development consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: May 13, 2013
Washington, DC

Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3