United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

K.B., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, FORT 

LEONARD WOOD, Nixa, MO, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1560 

Issued: December 21, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

On July 8, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed an application for review of a May 22, 

2014 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The appeal 

was docketed as No. 14-1560. 

Appellant, a 45-year-old clinical psychologist, filed an occupational disease claim (Form 

CA-2) on April 17, 2013. She alleged that she became sick after flying to a work conference in 

August 2012 and subsequently, her health continued to deteriorate. Appellant also alleged that, 

although she had requested reasonable accommodations for her previously diagnosed chronic 

fatigue syndrome, the employing establishment refused to make these accommodations. She 

asserted that she developed chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and dysautonomia due to 

employment factors, which resulted in anxiety and mood disorder. Appellant stated that she first 

became aware that these conditions were caused or aggravated by her employment on 

October 1, 2012. 

In determining whether a claimant has discharged his or her burden of proof to establish 

an employment-related occupational disease claim, OWCP is required by statute and regulations 
2 

to make findings of fact.1 OWCP procedures further specify that a final decision must include 

findings of fact and provide clear reasoning which allows the claimant to “understand the precise 

defect of the claim and the kind of evidence which would tend to overcome it.”2

 These 

requirements are supported by Board precedent.3

 

In cases involving emotional conditions, the Board has held that, when working 

conditions are alleged as factors in causing a condition or disability, OWCP as a part of its 

adjudicatory function must make findings of fact regarding which working conditions are 

deemed compensable factors of employment and are to be considered by a physician when 

providing an opinion on causal relationship and which working conditions are not deemed 

factors of employment and may not be considered.4

 

The Board finds that the May 22, 2014 decision of OWCP does not contain adequate 

findings of fact and reasoning. The hearing representative merely stated that appellant’s claim 

was predicated on her contentious relationship with her employer. 

In the absence of such findings and reasoning, appellant would not be able to understand 

the precise defect of her claim or the kind of evidence which would tend to overcome it. 

The case must therefore be remanded to OWCP for a proper decision to include findings 

of fact, a clear precise statement regarding the basis for the decision, and a copy of appellant’s 

appeal rights. After such development it deems necessary OWCP should issue an appropriate 

decision. 

 

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8124(a) provides: “The Secretary of Labor shall determine and make a finding of facts and make an 

award for or against payment of compensation.” 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 provides in pertinent part that the final decision 

of OWCP “shall contain findings of fact and a statement of reasons.” 

2 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.4 (July 1997). 

3 See James D. Boller, Jr., 12 ECAB 45, 46 (1960). 

4 Dennis J. Balogh, 52 ECAB 232 (2001). 
3 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 22, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs be set aside and the case remanded for further action in 

conformance with this order of the Board to be followed by an appropriate decision. 

Issued: December 21, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board