United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.D., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Cleveland, OH, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0225 

Issued: May 4, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

On November 17, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an 

October 23, 2015 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

The Board assigned Docket No. 16-0225. 

On October 3, 2014 appellant, then a 51-year-old labor custodian, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed a right shoulder “flare-up” as a result of 

her federal employment. She had previously filed a claim for occupational disease under File 

No. xxxxxx153, which was accepted for sprain and strain of an unspecified site of shoulder and 

upper arm. Appellant filed a notice of recurrence of this accepted injury on September 5, 2014. 

OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence claim, noting that the evidence of record suggested a new 

injury. It denied her October 3, 2014 occupational disease claim on February 2, 2015. 

A brief filed with the Board on appeal from counsel argues that OWCP improperly 

instructed appellant that she was required to file a new claim. Counsel argued that appellant’s 

accepted right shoulder condition never resolved, and her current condition was not due to a new 

injury. His brief references medical evidence regarding her right shoulder, as well as 

correspondence between OWCP and appellant regarding the issue of whether to characterize her 

current right shoulder condition as a recurrence or a new injury, which do not appear under the 

current file number, but which apparently do appear under File No. xxxxxx153. Counsel 

concluded that it was improper for OWCP to deny a recurrence claim under a guise that 

appellant had established a new injury, and then deny her application for new injury, as she had 

not established a new injury. 
2

As such, File No. xxxxxx153 contains evidence pertinent to the present claim under File 

No. xxxxxx869. Appellant’s claim for a right shoulder condition was denied because she had 

not submitted medical evidence containing a rationalized physician’s opinion on the causal 

relationship between her federal employment and the current condition. OWCP had already 

accepted a prior claim for the same bodily member under File No. xxxxxx153, and apparently 

had determined upon viewing the medical evidence that her present claim was actually for a new 

injury, rather than a recurrence. 

As appellant’s claim for a new injury deals with the same bodily member accepted under 

File No. xxxxxx153, and as she is arguing on appeal that OWCP made an error in characterizing 

her condition as a new injury rather than as a recurrence, medical evidence relating to the earlier 

accepted occupational disease under File No. xxxxxx153 would be necessary to the adjudication 

of the present claim. The Board, therefore, finds that the appeal docketed as No. 16-225 is 

currently not in posture for decision. 

OWCP procedures require that cases should be combined where proper adjudication 

depends on cross-referencing evidence between files, such as when “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. For instance, a claimant with an existing case for a back strain submits a new 

claim for a herniated lumbar disc.”1

 The case is remanded to OWCP for reconstruction and 

proper assemblage of the case record, to be followed by the issuance of an appropriate decision. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 23, 2015 decision of the Office of 

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

consistent with this order of the Board. 

 1

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, File Maintenance and Management, Chapter 2.400.8(c)(1) 

(February 2000). See also J.M., Docket No. 13-1111 (issued July 15, 2013). 
3

Issued: May 4, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board