United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

P.G., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

White Plains, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1806 

Issued: October 4, 2016 

 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas S. Harkins, Esq., for the appellant1

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 

JURISDICTION 

On September 1, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed an application for review of a 

March 30, 2015 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), File 

No. xxxxxx438, which denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. The appeal was docketed 

as No. 15-1806. 

On October 24, 2013 appellant, then a 50-year-old automation clerk, alleged that on 

September 29, 2013 she sustained a recurrence of a previously accepted August 23, 2007 

employment injury. She stopped work on September 30, 2013. OWCP determined that her 

recurrence claim should be adjudicated as a new occupational disease claim and assigned File 

 1

 In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An 

attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject 

to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation. 
2

No. xxxxxx438. The earlier claim for the August 23, 2007 injury, to which OWCP assigned File 

No. xxxxxx366, is not presently before the Board. 

On her claim form, appellant explained that since she returned to work on September 7, 

2013 following the August 23, 2007 injury, she believed that using her upper body differently 

aggravated the injuries to her neck and shoulder duty. She noted that she had not sustained any 

new traumatic injury relating to her neck or shoulder since returning to full duty. Along with her 

claim, appellant submitted several medical reports dated October 8, 2013 to January 17, 2014 by 

Dr. Jean Bachar, Board-certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation, who examined 

appellant for complaints of pain in the neck and left shoulder. In an August 8, 2013 report, she 

noted a date of injury of August 23, 2007. Dr. Bachar reported that appellant was out of work 

and returned on September 27, 2013. She related that upon returning to work appellant 

experienced severe pain in her cervical spine and left shoulder. Dr. Bachar provided physical 

examination findings and diagnosed cervicalgia and lumbosacral neuritis. 

By decisions dated February 11, 2014 and March 30, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s 

claim finding insufficient medical evidence to establish that her cervical and left shoulder 

conditions were causally related to factors of her employment. 

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

decision. OWCP procedures provide for combining case files where correct adjudication 

depends on cross-referencing between files. For example, if 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, doubling is required.2

 In the instant case, appellant filed a recurrence of disability claim 

for an August 23, 2007 injury, which OWCP converted to an occupational disease claim and 

assigned File No. xxxxxx438. OWCP thereafter denied the claim, for failure to establish causal 

relationship. 

The record reveals that appellant’s previous August 23, 2007 employment injury was 

assigned File No. xxxxxx366 and that the injury was to the same part of the body. The factual 

and medical evidence pertaining to appellant’s August 23, 2007 employment injury in File No. 

xxxxxx366, however, is not contained in the case record. Furthermore, the record indicates that 

appellant attempted to file this claim as a recurrence claim of the August 23, 2007 employment 

injury. OWCP, however, adjudicated the claim as a new occupational disease claim, even 

though the evidence supports that appellant may have sustained a recurrence of the August 23, 

2007 cervical and left shoulder injury. It failed to properly combine or request combination of 

the present case record with the record of the August 23, 2007 employment injury, which 

appellant asserted was the initial cause of his current conditions.3

The case will be remanded to OWCP to combine case files xxxxxx366 and xxxxxx438 

and determine whether appellant sustained either a recurrence of disability of her August 23, 

2007 employment injury or a new occupational disease injury. Following this and such other 

 2

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- File Maintenance and Management, Doubling Case Files, Chapter 

2.4000.8(c) (February 2000). 

3 See D.L., Docket No. 14-0897 (issued September 25, 2015). 
3

development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue an appropriate merit decision on 

appellant’s claim. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 30, 2015 decision of the Office of 

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

action consistent with this order of the Board. 

Issued: October 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