United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.S., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, 

Topeka, KS, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 13-2060 

Issued: May 22, 2014 

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). 
2

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 Boardcertified 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. 
3

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.