M.W. and U.S. Postal Service, Post Office, City of Industry, CA (Board decision, January 23, 2018)

ECAB final decision. The Board set aside OWCP’s September 29, 2016 decision and remanded to combine related files and issue a new merit decision. The occupational disease claim remains unresolved. Under 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d), this Board decision becomes final 30 days after issuance unless the Board fixed a different period in it. A party may petition the Board for reconsideration within 30 days unless this decision specifies another period, under 20 C.F.R. § 501.7(a).

Plain-English summary

M.W. filed a new occupational disease claim after an earlier accepted wrist condition. The record before the Board lacked the earlier claim file, though both matters involved the same part of the body. The Board found that OWCP needed to combine the files before deciding the new claim. It set aside the denial and ordered a new merit decision.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: FECA Procedure Manual, Part 2, Chapter 2.400.8(c), and P.G., Docket No. 15-1806.
• Outcome: September 29, 2016 decision set aside; related files to be combined and claim decided again.
• Key point: OWCP could not decide the new wrist claim on a record missing the related earlier file.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
M.W., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 17-0743
) Issued: January 23, 2018
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
)
City of Industry, CA, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

On February 14, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 29, 2016 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), File No. xxxxxx952, which denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. The appeal was docketed as No. 17-0743.

On September 30, 2015 appellant filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) and attributed his bilateral wrist tendinitis and aggravation of rheumatoid arthritis to his work duties. He noted that he was initially instructed to file a recurrence claim, but later was told to file a new occupational disease claim. OWCP assigned the claim File No. xxxxxx952. Appellant’s supervisor noted that appellant stopped work on November 15, 2013 and was in a leave status from November 15, 2013 until he retired through disability retirement in February 2015. She also noted that appellant had previously received a schedule award for a bilateral hand and wrist condition through a February 21, 2008 occupational disease claim, assigned File No. xxxxxx396. The claim was accepted for bilateral wrist tendinitis.

Appellant reported that his bilateral wrist and hand pain began in January 2008 and became worse after working for five more years with repetitive motion. He listed his duties as repetitive work of casing mail, opening vehicle door, and delivery of a large volume of mail on his route. Appellant noted that the pain in his wrists and hands was the same condition he had in 2008 which was approved by OWCP in File No. xxxxxx396. In a December 4, 2015 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim finding that he had not submitted medical evidence of a medical diagnosis in connection with his employment duties. Appellant requested an oral hearing from OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review which was held on August 16, 2016. By decision dated September 29, 2016, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s December 4, 2015 decision with modification.1 She found that appellant had established a medical diagnosis. However, OWCP’s hearing representative found that appellant had not established causal relationship between his injury and the specific condition for which compensation was claimed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the case is not in posture for decision. OWCP procedures provide for combining case files where correct adjudication depends on cross-referencing between files. For example, if 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, doubling is required.2 In the instant case, appellant asserted that he initially filed a recurrence of disability claim for the February 21, 2008 occupational disease injury, to which OWCP had assigned File No. xxxxxx396. He was then instructed to file an occupational disease claim and assigned File No. xxxxxx952. OWCP thereafter denied the claim.

The record reveals that appellant’s previous February 21, 2008 occupational disease employment injury was assigned File No. xxxxxx396 and that the injury was to the same part of the body. The factual and medical evidence pertaining to appellant’s February 21, 2008 employment injury in File No. xxxxxx396, however, is not contained in the case record. OWCP, failed to properly combine or request combination of the present case record with the record of the February 21, 2008 employment injury, which appellant asserted was the initial cause of his current conditions.3

The case will be remanded to OWCP to combine case file numbers xxxxxx396 and xxxxxx952 and determine whether appellant sustained a new occupational disease injury. Following this and such other development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue an appropriate merit decision on appellant’s claim.

1
OWCP’s hearing representative noted that appellant had a previously accepted claim for bilateral wrist tendinitis dated February 21, 2008. File No. xxxxxx396. He filed a claim for recurrence of this claim which was last denied on December 10, 2014. Appellant filed a claim for right shoulder injury in 2011 which OWCP accepted for disorders of the bursa and tendons of the right shoulder. File No. xxxxxx935. Appellant also filed a claim for recurrence of this condition which OWCP denied. OWCP suspended his compensation benefits under this claim number on June 2, 2016. 2 P.G., Docket No. 15-1806 (issued October 4, 2016); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, File Maintenance and Management, Chapter 2.400.8(c) (February 2000).

2
 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 29, 2016 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case remanded to OWCP for further action consistent with this order of the Board.3

Issued: January 23, 2018
Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3
Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge, participated in the preparation of this order, but was no longer a member of the Board effective December 11, 2017.

3