J.S. and Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Topeka, KS (Board decision, May 22, 2014)

ECAB remand decision and order. The Board set aside OWCP’s June 24, 2013 denial because OWCP had not addressed J.S.’s claim that work aggravated depression and anxiety. OWCP must make adequate findings and issue a new decision; entitlement to compensation remains unresolved. A party may petition the Board for reconsideration within 30 days unless this order specifies another period, under 20 C.F.R. § 501.7(a).

Plain-English summary

J.S., a Veterans Health Administration program support assistant, reported that workplace demands aggravated her emotional conditions. Her paperwork also referred to neck and shoulder symptoms, and OWCP combined two claim files. OWCP denied the claim after evaluating a neck condition, but it did not address her statements about an emotional condition or assess her psychiatrist’s report. The Board held that the denial lacked the findings and reasons required for that part of the claim. It set aside the decision and directed OWCP to address the emotional condition claim in a new decision.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Reasoned OWCP decisions, 20 C.F.R. § 10.126.
• Outcome: Denial set aside and claim remanded for findings on the emotional condition allegation.
• Key point: OWCP had assessed a neck condition while leaving the asserted emotional condition unaddressed.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
J.S., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 13-2060
) Issued: May 22, 2014
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
)
VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION,
)
Topeka, KS, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:
RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge
COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

On September 9, 2013 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from the June 24, 2013 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying her occupational disease claim. The Clerk of the Board assigned Docket No. 13-2060.

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that this case is not in posture for decision. It is well established that an OWCP final decision must make adequate findings and provide a statement of reasons.1 In addition, OWCP procedures state that a final decision should discuss key parts of the evidence received and include an evaluation of the evidence that should be clear and detailed so that the reader understands the reason for the disallowance of the benefit and the evidence necessary to overcome the defect of the claim.2 The June 24, 2013 OWCP decision does not meet this standard.

On March 22, 2013 appellant, then a 56-year-old program support assistant, filed an occupational disease claim alleging that she sustained stress and strain in aggravation of a

1
20 C.F.R. § 10.126. See also O.R., 59 ECAB 432 (2008).
2
Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5(c) (February 2013). preexisting injury. She stated that her condition resulted from her employers’ insistence that she use leave or work longer shifts to cover her physician’s recommended light-duty work restriction of 10- to 15-minute breaks for every hour spent using a keyboard, due to a neck condition. Under the heading “nature of disease or illness,” appellant wrote, “stress and strain in aggravation of a pre-existing injury.”

In a record of a telephone conversation dated April 19, 2013, appellant stated that she had meant to file a claim for stress at work, which aggravated her preexisting conditions of depression and anxiety. In a letter dated April 19, 2013, she noted that the initial date of aggravation of her depression and anxiety was March 15, 2013 and described employment factors relating to her claim. Appellant also submitted e-mail records dating from March 19 through 21, 2013 regarding the alleged work factors.

Appellant submitted a report dated April 11, 2013 from Dr. Denise M. Hawks, a Board- certified psychiatrist.

In an occupational disease claim dated June 5, 2013, appellant alleged that her neck and shoulders sustained fatigue and overexertion from prolonged data entry in the performance of duty. OWCP assigned this claim File No. xxxxxx311.

On June 17, 2013 OWCP determined that it had created two separate cases for the same injury and combined the two cases under the File No. xxxxxx920.

In a June 24, 2013 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim on the grounds that she had not established any employment factors related to an orthopedic neck condition, stating that her claim appeared to be for a neck condition rather than an emotional condition. It noted that her March 22, 2013 claim for occupational disease contained a statement that her condition occurred when she sustained a neck injury. OWCP stated that, in order to have her emotional condition considered, appellant must file a separate CA-2 claim and clearly indicate that she was claiming an emotional condition.

Because OWCP considered only appellant’s claim for a neck condition in its June 24, 2013 decision, it did not make adequate findings regarding her statements alleging work factors relating to her emotional condition, or the probative value of Dr. Hawks’ April 11, 2013 report.

The case will be remanded for OWCP for proper findings and a decision that adequately addresses appellant’s claim for an emotional condition. After such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it should issue an appropriate decision.

2
 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs dated June 24, 2013 is set aside and the case remanded for further action consistent with this order of the Board.3

Issued: May 22, 2014
Washington, DC

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

3
Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge, who participated in the preparation of this order, was no longer a member of the Board after May 16, 2014.

3