United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

New Orleans, LA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1783

Issued: July 29, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Joanne Wright, 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 September 25, 2018 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from a 

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

of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 18-1783.

On April 15, 2016 appellant, then a 35-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1), assigned OWCP File No. xxxxx289, alleging that on February 10, 2016 

she sprained her left ankle when she lost control of a heavy gurney of mail that she was moving 

down a ramp at work while in the performance of duty. No evidence was received with the claim.

OWCP, in a development letter dated April 25, 2016, advised appellant of the factual and 

medical deficiencies of her claim and requested that she provide medical evidence, including a 

well-rationalized report from her physician which explained how the reported incident caused or 

 

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

aggravated her medical condition. Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit the requested 

evidence. No additional evidence was received. 

By decision dated May 26, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim finding 

that she had not submitted medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis in connection with the 

accepted February 10, 2016 employment incident. On June 7, 2016 appellant requested an oral 

hearing before an OWCP hearing representative and submitted medical evidence.

By decision dated April 5, 2017, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the May 26, 

2016 decision with modification. She found that appellant had established the diagnoses of left 

ankle sprain, left peroneal tendon tear, and left ankle injury with peroneal tendinitis. The hearing 

representative predicated her finding on the medical evidence in the present claim as well as 

medical reports contained in appellant’s prior October 16, 2015 traumatic injury claim, assigned 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx115, which OWCP had accepted for sprain of unspecified ligament of the 

left ankle and strain of muscles and tendons of the peroneal group at the lower left leg. The present 

claim, however, remained denied as the medical evidence in OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx289 and 

xxxxxx115 did not contain a rationalized opinion establishing causal relationship between the 

diagnosed conditions and the accepted February 10, 2016 employment incident.

On April 2, 2018 appellant, through her representative, requested reconsideration and 

submitted additional medical evidence. By decision dated June 29, 2018, OWCP denied 

modification of the April 5, 2017 decision finding that the medical evidence in OWCP File Nos.

xxxxxx289 and xxxxxx115 was insufficient to establish that appellant’s diagnosed left ankle 

conditions were causally related to the February 10, 2016 employment incident.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that this case is not in posture for 

decision. OWCP’s procedures provide that cases should be administratively combined when 

correct adjudication of the issues depends on frequent cross-reference between files.2 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.3

In adjudicating appellant’s instant claim under File No. xxxxxx289, OWCP specifically 

referenced medical evidence obtained from File No. xxxxxx115. However, such records are not 

available for the Board to review as the files have not been administratively combined. Without 

the ability to review this evidence, the Board is not in a position to make an informed decision 

regarding appellant’s entitlement to FECA benefits.

For a full and fair adjudication, the case must be returned to OWCP to administratively 

combine the current case record with File No. xxxxxx115.4 Following this and other such further 

 

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

(February 2000) (cases should be doubled/combined when correct adjudication of the issues depends on frequent 

cross-reference between files).

3

Id.

4 See R.G., Docket No. 18-0244 (issued May 21, 2018).
3

development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision regarding appellant’s 

claimed February 10, 2016 injury.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 29, 2018 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.

Issued: July 29, 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