United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.V., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, REMOTE 

ENCONDING CENTER, Salt Lake City, UT, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-838 

Issued: November 10, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

David J. Holdsworth, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

On March 5, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a September 24, 

2013 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying his request 

for reconsideration. The Board assigned Docket No. 14-838.1

On June 7, 2011 appellant, then a 33-year-old career clerk, filed an occupational disease 

claim alleging that on July 3, 2010 he first realized that his bilateral epicondylitis resulted from 

the performance of fine manipulation and his bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. OWCP denied 

appellant’s claim on August 25, 2011. By letter dated March 23, 2012, appellant requested 

reconsideration and referenced his prior claim which had been accepted for carpal tunnel 

syndrome under File No. xxxxxx266. On March 28, 2012 OWCP also received an August 17, 

2011 letter in which appellant alleged that his bilateral epicondylitis was causally related to his 

accepted carpal tunnel syndrome. It denied modification by decision dated June 25, 2012. By 

letter dated June 22, 2013, appellant’s counsel requested reconsideration and referenced File No. 

xxxxxx266 and the current File No. xxxxxx482. On September 24, 2013 OWCP denied 

reconsideration. On appeal counsel contended that there was an unresolved question as to the 

 1

 Appellant, through counsel, timely requested an oral argument before the Board, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.5(b). The Board exercised its discretion, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(a) in denying the oral argument 

request by a July 14, 2014 order. See Order Denying Request for Oral Argument, Docket No. 14-838 (issued 

July 14, 2014). 
2

relationship between appellant’s accepted right carpal tunnel syndrome under File No. 

xxxxxx266 and the alleged bilateral epicondylitis under File No. xxxxxx482. 

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that the case is not in posture for 

a decision. OWCP procedures provide that cases should be doubled when a new injury is 

reported for an employee who previously filed an injury claim for a similar condition and further 

indicates that the cases should be doubled as soon as the need to do so becomes apparent.2

 

As the record before the Board does not contain all the evidence from the prior related 

claim, the Board is unable to properly address and adjudicate the issue of appellant’s current 

occupational injury attributing his bilateral epicondylitis to his work duties and bilateral carpal 

tunnel syndrome, previously accepted under File No. xxxxxx482. 

On remand, OWCP should combine the present case record, File No. xxxxxx482, with 

File No. xxxxxx266. After combining these case records on remand, it should consider the 

evidence contained in the combined case record and, following any necessary further 

development, issue a de novo decision. Accordingly, the September 24, 2013 decision denying 

appellant’s occupational disease shall be set aside. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated September 24, 2013 is set aside and the case remanded for further 

proceedings consistent with this order of the Board. 

Issued: November 10, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 2

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Doubling Case Files, Chapter 2.400.8(c)(1) 

(February 2000).