J.W. and U.S. Postal Service, Redmond Post Office (Board decision, December 11, 2023)

ECAB remand decision. The Board set aside OWCP’s June 26, 2023 denial and ordered the related claim files combined and the submitted evidence reviewed. OWCP must issue a new decision; injury entitlement 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).

Plain-English summary

A Postal Service letter carrier claimed upper extremity conditions from handling packages. OWCP denied the claim, saying she had not responded to its request for details and it was unclear whether she had filed a duplicate claim. The Board found that OWCP had received her detailed account before the denial but had not addressed it. It also found that two related claim files should be combined for proper review. The Board set aside the denial and directed OWCP to review the evidence in both files and issue a new decision.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: FECA requirement to address submitted evidence and combine related claim files.
• Outcome: Claim denial set aside; related files and evidence returned for a new decision.
• Key point: OWCP must review relevant evidence received before its decision and consider related files together.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
J.W., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 23-1007
)
Issued: December 11, 2023
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, REDMOND POST )
OFFICE, Redmond, WA, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Appellant, pro se
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 July 25, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 26, 2023 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 23-1007.

On April 11, 2023 appellant, then a 43-year-old city letter carrier, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained an injury causally related to factors of her federal employment of constantly picking up and dropping off packages while delivering mail. She did not indicate the nature of the disease or illness. Appellant noted that she first became aware of her claimed condition on September 9, 2022, and its relationship to her federal employment on October 9, 2022. She did not stop work.1

OWCP received a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated March 24, 2023, from Dr. Gregory Gutke, an occupational medicine specialist. Dr. Gutke diagnosed lateral epicondylitis

1
OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx262. Appellant had previously filed a Form CA-2 on March 21, 2023 alleging injury to her elbows and shoulders due to factors of her federal employment. She indicated that she became aware of the conditions on September 9, 2021, and that they were caused or aggravated by her federal employment on October 9, 2021. OWCP assigned that claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx030. It denied the claim by decision dated June 12, 2023, finding that appellant had not established the factual basis of her claim.

of the right elbow. He advised that appellant could return to work on that date with a restriction of lifting/carrying no more than 20 pounds intermittently.

On April 19, 2023 appellant provided a narrative statement, which OWCP received on April 20, 2023, explaining that the duties of her employment as a city letter carrier included delivering mail and packages. She noted that her route usually included delivery of 70 to 100 packages every day, some of which weighed more than 50 pounds. Appellant further noted that aside from delivering mail, her duties included picking up packages, loading them into her truck, and placing them onto front porches. She stated that approximately two years prior, possibly in mid-2021, she felt soreness in her arms and elbows, but did not pay a ttention to the soreness at that time. In mid-2022, she felt that her condition had worsened.

In a development letter dated April 26, 2023, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and requested that she complete a provided questionnaire in order to substantiate the factual elements of her claim. Specifically, OWCP noted that appellant had filed another occupational disease claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx030 with a date of injury of September 21, 2021, and requested that appellant clarify whether this was a duplicate claim or another claim. It afforded appellant 60 days to respond and submit additional evidence.

In a statement dated June 10, 2023, appellant clarified that she had filed a claim on September 9, 2022 in relation to her occupational disease. She indicated that she did not know that she had made two attempts to file the same claim. Appellant requested that the duplicate claim be eliminated.

In a referral note for diagnostic testing dated May 19, 2023, Dr. Gutke diagnosed bilateral lateral epicondylitis and ulnar neuropathy of the left elbow. OWCP also received additional CA-17 forms from Dr. Gutke dated September 26, 2022, and March 24 and May 19, 2023.

By decision dated June 26, 2023, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish the factual basis of her claim . It related that appellant had not responded to the development letter of April 26, 2023. OWCP also noted that it was still unclear as to which claim appellant wanted to pursue. OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

The Board, having duly considered this matter, finds that th e case is not in posture for decision.

In the case of William A. Couch,2 the Board held that when adjudicating a claim, OWCP is obligated to consider and address all evidence properly submitted by a claimant and received by OWCP before the final decision is issued. As previously noted, appellant submitted a narrative statement dated April 19, 2023, which was received by OWCP on April 20, 2023, wherein she provided a detailed description of the employment factors she believed caused injury to her upper

2
41 ECAB 548, 553 (1990); see also Order Remanding Case, T.F., Docket No. 22-0015 (issued May 16, 2022);
Order Remanding Case, F.A., Docket No. 20-1324 (issued March 1, 2021); T.G., Docket No. 19-1930 (issued January 8, 2021).

2

extremities. However, the record does not indicate that OWCP reviewed this additional evidence in its June 26, 2023 decision, which found that appellant had not established the factual aspects of her claim. It, thus, failed to follow its procedures by not considering and addressing the relevant evidence of record. 3

The Board further notes that OWCP’s procedures provide that cases should be administratively combined when correct adjudication depends on frequent cross -referencing between files and where two or more injuries occur to the same part of the body. 4 In the present claim OWCP further noted that it was unclear as to whether OWCP File No. xxxxxx030 was a duplicate claim. The Board finds that this issue must be resolved by administratively combining OWCP File No. xxxxxx030 and the present claim under File No. xxxxxx262, as correct adjudication depends on cross-referencing between these files and the claimed injury or injuries appear to have occurred to the same part of the body. For a full and fair adjudication, the claims in OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx030 and xxxxxx262 shall be administratively combined by OWCP.

As the Board’s decisions are final as to the subject matter appealed, it is crucial that OWCP consider and address all evidence received prior to the issuance of its decision. 5 For this reason, the case will be remanded to OWCP to review all relevant evidence submitted in both claims. Following this and other such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision. Accordingly,

3
OWCP’s procedures provide that all evidence submitted should be reviewed and discussed in the decision.
Evidence received following development that lacks probative value also should be acknowledged. Whenever possible, the evidence should be referenced by author and date. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Denials, Chapter 2.1401.5b(2) (November 2012). 4 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, File Maintenance and Management, Chapter 2.400.8c (February 2000).
5
Order Remanding Case, G.A., Docket No. 19-1080 (issued January 2, 2020); Order Remanding Case, T.J., Docket No. 14-1854 (issued February 3, 2015); Order Remanding Case, J.J., Docket No. 12-1062 (issued December 12, 2012); Willard McKennon, 51 ECAB 145 (1999); Linda Johnson, 45 ECAB 439 (1994). See also Order Remanding Case, C.S., Docket No. 18-1760 (issued November 25, 2019); Yvette N. Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004).

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 26, 2023 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded to OWCP for further proceedings consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: December 11, 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

4