United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PITTSBURGH 

NETWORK DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Pittsburgh, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0262

Issued: December 31, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

On November 16, 2018 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an 

August 29, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk 

of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 19-0262. 

On June 10, 2015 appellant, then a 47-year-old custodian, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) for a bilateral hand condition which allegedly arose on or about December 5, 

2013 due to factors of her federal employment. On her claim form, she referenced a prior workrelated neck injury under OWCP File No. xxxxxx139.2

 Appellant indicated that her doctors were 

unsure whether her current bilateral hand condition was due to her prior work-related neck injury 

or due to a newly acquired carpal tunnel syndrome. 

 

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 OWCP accepted appellant’s traumatic injury claim in File No. xxxxxx139 for neck sprain, which arose on 

September 18, 2013.
2

After further development of the case record, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that 

the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that her diagnosed bilateral carpal 

tunnel syndrome was causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. However, 

by decision dated July 28, 2016, a hearing representative set aside the prior decision and remanded 

the case to OWCP for further development, which included referral for a second opinion 

evaluation.

On remand OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Victoria M. Langa, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, who examined appellant on December 30, 2016 and diagnosed bilateral carpal 

tunnel syndrome.3 Dr. Langa indicated that appellant’s carpal tunnel syndrome was not work

related. 

OWCP again denied appellant’s claim by decision dated January 12, 2017. By decision 

dated September 20, 2017, an OWCP hearing representative found there remained an unresolved 

conflict in the medical opinion evidence, and therefore, set aside the January 12, 2017 decision 

and remanded the case for referral to an impartial medical examiner (IME).

In a report dated March 22, 2018, Dr. Mark E. Baratz, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon 

serving as an IME, determined that appellant’s bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was not work

related.

By decision dated April 9, 2018, OWCP again denied appellant’s claim. It accorded the 

special weight of the medical evidence to the March 22, 2018 report of IME Dr. Baratz.

Counsel timely requested a hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings 

and Review, held on July 11, 2018. He challenged OWCP’s reliance on the IME’s opinion, noting 

that he had not offered an alternative cause for appellant’s carpal tunnel syndrome or adequately 

explained why her custodial duties were insufficient to have either caused or contributed to her 

bilateral carpal tunnel condition.

By decision dated August 29, 2018, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

April 9, 2018 decision, finding that the medical reports submitted in the present claim, as well as 

medical reports contained in File No. xxxxxx139. In affirming the decision dated April 9, 2018, 

the hearing representative noted that, on September 18, 2013, appellant was involved in a workrelated motor vehicle accident which had been accepted for cervical strain in File No. xxxxxx139. 

The hearing representative further noted that OWCP had continued to develop the medical record

as to her cervical strain, including sending appellant for a second opinion orthopedic examination 

on February 18, 2015 by Dr. Langa, who reportedly addressed appellant’s cervical sprain and also 

diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. OWCP did not image these documents the referenced 

medical evidence into the present claim file.

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1), the Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was 

before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Decisions on claims are based on the written record, 

which may include forms, reports, letters, and other evidence of various types such as photographs, 

 

3 Dr. Langa noted that she had previously evaluated appellant on February 18, 2015 with respect to her 

September 18, 2013 work-related cervical sprain.
3

videotapes, or drawings.4 Evidence may not be incorporated by reference, nor may evidence from 

“another claimant’s case file” be used.5 Evidence contained in another of the claimant’s case files 

may be used, but a copy of that evidence should be placed into the case file being adjudicated.6 

All evidence that forms the basis of a decision must be in that claimant’s case record.7

As noted, OWCP’s August 29, 2018 decision referenced evidence associated with OWCP 

File No. xxxxxx139. It also discussed Dr. Langa’s February 18, 2015 second opinion examination,

which reportedly diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome which is the diagnosed condition in 

the present claim. Although OWCP relied upon the aforementioned report in denying appellant’s 

claim for FECA benefits, it neglected to include the referenced information in the current case file. 

Because of this oversight, the Board is not in a position to make an informed decision regarding 

appellant’s claim.

8

 Therefore, the case shall be remanded to OWCP for further development to be 

followed by a de novo decision regarding appellant’s entitlement to FECA benefits with respect to 

her June 10, 2015 occupational disease claim.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 29, 2018 decision of the Office of 

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

proceedings consistent with this order of the Board.

 

4 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Development of Claims, Chapter 2.800.5(a) 

(June 2011).

5

Id.

6

Id.

7

Id.

8 See O.R., Docket No. 18-0013 (issued April 9, 2018); K.P., Docket No. 15-1945 (issued February 10, 2016); M.C., 

Docket No. 15-1706 (issued October 22, 2015).
4

Issued: December 31, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board