United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.G., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, 

Gainesville, FL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0976 

Issued: August 12, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 6, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 21, 2016 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ 

Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over 

the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant filed a timely occupational disease claim under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8122(a). 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 5, 2016 appellant, then a 67-year-old health technician, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that his left carpal tunnel syndrome was due to 

his work duties. He advised that on March 1, 2011 he first became aware of his left carpal tunnel 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

condition and that on January 25, 2016 he first realized that his condition was aggravated by 

excessive typing and repetitive motion procedures at work. Appellant explained that, from 

November 2015 to January 2016, more patients than usual were scheduled for appointments and 

that this necessitated excessive typing and repetitive motion procedures that aggravated his 

condition. The reverse of the claim form indicated that he had reported the condition to his 

supervisor on January 25, 2016 and that he was last exposed to conditions alleged to have caused 

his disease or illness on February 5, 2016. 

In a February 18, 2016 letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of his claim 

and afforded him 30 days to submit additional medical and factual evidence. It also requested 

that the employing establishment respond to his contentions. 

In a February 22, 2011 medical report, Dr. William J. Triggs, a Board-certified 

neurologist, advised that a motor nerve conduction study was abnormal with electrophysiological 

evidence of left carpal tunnel syndrome and borderline right carpal tunnel syndrome. 

Medical reports and a prescription dated March 1, 2011 and January 6 to 25, 2016 from 

Dr. James D. Bass, a Board-certified family practitioner, Dr. John M. Redmond and Dr. Peter M. 

Murray, Board-certified orthopedic surgeons, Dr. Kathleen E. Carey and Dr. Thomas H. 

Berquist, Board-certified radiologists, and Dr. Julia Whitlock and Dr. Kathleen Donovan 

Kennelly, Board-certified neurologists, provided examination findings and addressed appellant’s 

bilateral wrist, right elbow, and cervical conditions. 

In a February 3, 2016 prescription, Chelcy M. Heck, a physician assistant, confirmed the 

diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome and addressed appellant’s work restriction. She noted that 

he was scheduled to undergo surgery for his condition on February 26, 2016. 

By a report of contact dated February 5, 2016, the employing establishment’s chief nurse 

advised that on February 5, 2016 appellant requested work accommodations that did not require 

repetitive motion of his hand. 

In a February 10, 2016 report of contact, Howard R. Oliver, an interim nursing 

supervisor, related that commencing on February 8, 2016 appellant was provided with reasonable 

accommodations for his carpal tunnel syndrome. He noted that on the date of his report 

appellant appeared to be in no distress and was not wearing a wrist brace on his left wrist or an 

elbow brace/pad on his right arm. Mr. Oliver, in a February 24, 2016 narrative statement, 

contended that appellant had not sustained the alleged injury due to a mild-to-moderate daily 

increase in his work duties. He noted that appellant processed an increase of nine patients in 

November 2015 and five patients in December 2015 on a daily basis. Mr. Oliver stated that he 

was not informed about these concerns until January 25, 2016, one month before appellant’s 

retirement. Appellant did not acknowledge any carpal tunnel syndrome complications during 

prior meetings and did not request an ergonomic consult during the time that he worked as an 

interim nurse manager. Mr. Oliver submitted clinic workload reports dated June 1, 2015 to 

January 31, 2016 that compared current visits to the clinic and visits made during the previous 

year. 

In a March 21, 2016 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation, finding 

that it was untimely filed. It found that the date of injury was March 1, 2011 and he had not filed 
3

the claim within three years. OWCP noted that appellant had not submitted any factual evidence 

regarding the filing of his claim in response to the development letter. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The issue of whether a claim was timely filed is a preliminary jurisdictional issue that 

precedes any determination on the merits of the claim.2

 In cases of injury on or after 

September 7, 1974, section 8122(a) of FECA provides that an original claim for compensation 

for disability or death must be filed within three years after the injury or death.3

 Under this 

section, a claim must be filed within three years unless “the immediate superior had actual 

knowledge of the injury or death within 30 days” or written notice of the injury or death was 

provided, as specified under 5 U.S.C. § 8119, within 30 days.4

 Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8122(b), 

in latent disability cases, the time limitation does not begin to run until the claimant is aware, or 

by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been aware, of the causal relationship 

between the employment and the compensable disability. 

When an employee becomes aware or reasonably should have been aware that he or she 

has a condition which has been adversely affected by factors of his or her federal employment, 

such awareness is competent to start the limitation period even though the employee does not 

know the precise nature of the impairment or whether the ultimate result of such affect would be 

temporary or permanent.5

 If the employee continues to be exposed to the identified employment 

factors after he or she reasonably should have been aware that he or she has a condition which 

has been adversely affected by factors of federal employment, the time limitation begins to run 

on the date of the last exposure to the implicated factors.6

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, appellant filed an occupational disease claim on February 5, 2016. 

The evidence of record indicates that he was claiming a left wrist injury resulting from his work 

duties in federal employment. Appellant claimed that his left carpal tunnel syndrome was 

aggravated by excessive typing and repetitive procedures at work. The reverse of the claim form 

reported that he was last exposed to conditions alleged to have caused his left wrist injury on 

February 5, 2016. Mr. Oliver related that appellant retired in February 2016, one month after he 

became aware of appellant’s concerns on January 25, 2016. 

OWCP has found the claim untimely filed under 5 U.S.C. § 8122(a) because appellant 

indicated he was aware of an employment-related left wrist injury on March 1, 2011 and did not 

file the claim until February 5, 2016.7

 It, however, failed to acknowledge that appellant’s claim 

 2

 Charles Walker, 55 ECAB 238, 239 (2004). 

3

 5 U.S.C. § 8122(a). 

4 Id. at § 8119. 

5 Larry E. Young, 52 ECAB 264 (2001). 

6 Id.; Linda J. Reeves, 48 ECAB 373 (1997). 

7

 OWCP’s March 21, 2016 decision also inadvertently states that appellant’s claim was filed on January 25, 2016. 

This appears to be a typographical error as the record reflects that appellant filed his claim on February 5, 2016. 
4

is an occupational disease claim based on continuing exposure to the identified work factors. 

The time limitation does not begin to run until appellant is no longer exposed to the identified 

factors alleged to have contributed to an employment injury. As the Board has explained, “if an 

employee continues to be exposed to injurious working conditions, the time limitation begins to 

run on the last date of this exposure.”8

 The date of last exposure in this case was not until 

February 5, 2016. His claim was therefore timely filed under 5 U.S.C. § 8122(a). 

Since OWCP has not properly considered the merits of the claim, the case will be 

remanded to OWCP. After such further development as is warranted, OWCP should issue a 

de novo decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant’s occupational disease claim was timely filed under 

5 U.S.C. § 8122(a). 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 21, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Program is reversed and the case remanded for further action consistent 

with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: August 12, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 8 J.C., Docket No. 15-1596 (issued November 5, 2015).