K.W. and U.S. Postal Service, Bear Post Office, Bear, DE (Board decision, January 26, 2023)

ECAB remand decision. The Board set aside OWCP's December 29, 2021 decision and remanded for combined review of related injury files; entitlement to compensation remains unresolved. 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). FECA compensation decisions are generally not subject to court review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b).

Plain-English summary

A Postal Service rural carrier filed a claim for back and leg injuries after handling a large parcel. OWCP accepted that the work incident occurred but denied the claim for lack of medical evidence connecting it to her back condition. The Board found that the carrier had earlier injury claims involving the same body region, and that those files needed to be considered together. It set aside the denial and directed OWCP to combine the files, develop the record as needed, and issue a new decision.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act; OWCP Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Chapter 2.400.8c.
• Outcome: Claim denial set aside and remanded for combined review of related case files.
• Key point: Related injury files must be combined when adjudication depends on cross-referencing them.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
K.W., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 22-0951
) Issued: January 26, 2023
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BEAR POST OFFICE,
)
Bear, DE, Employer
)
_________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On June 6, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a December 29, 2021 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 2 The Clerk of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as Docket No. 22-0951.

On May 20, 2020 appellant, then a 56-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 16, 2020 she injured her back and left leg when pulling a large

1
In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation. 2 The Board notes that, following the December 29, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id. parcel from her truck and carrying it into a building while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on May 16, 2020.

By decision dated July 1, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim. It accepted that the May 16, 2020 employment incident occurred, as alleged, but denied the claim finding that the medical evidence did not establish causal relationship between the accepted May 16, 2020 employment incident and her diagnosed low back conditions.

On June 22, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of the July 1, 2020 decision and submitted additional evidence.

By decision dated December 29, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that this case is not in posture for decision. OWCP’s procedures provide that cases should be administratively combined when correct adjudication of the issues depends on frequent cross-referencing between files. 3 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. 4

Herein, appellant had prior traumatic injury claims for low back injuries, assigned OWCP File No. xxxxx2486, OWCP File No. xxxxxx923, and OWCP File No. xxxxxx838 . She subsequently filed a May 16, 2020 traumatic injury claim for the same region of the body, assigned OWCP File No. xxxxx4486, which is the claim presently before the Board. Therefore, for a full and fair adjudication, the case must be returned to OWCP to administratively combine the current case record, OWCP File No. xxxxxx4486, with OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx2486, xxxxxx923, and xxxxxx838. Following this and such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision. Accordingly,

3
Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, File Maintenance and Management, Chapter 2.400.8c (February 2000).
4
Id.; A.D., Docket No. 22-0147 (issued July 1, 2022); S.G., Docket No. 21-0396 (issued September 27, 2021); R.L., Docket No. 20-0901 (issued July 27, 2021); M.E., Docket No. 21-0094 (issued May 27, 2021); L.M., Docket No. 19-1490 (issued January 29, 2020); L.H., Docket No. 18-1777 (issued July 2, 2019).

2
 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 29, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: January 26, 2023
Washington, DC

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

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3