United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, NORTH TEXAS 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Coppell, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1013

Issued: December 31, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 April 8, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 4, 2019 decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

docketed the appeal as No. 19-1013.

1

On November 2, 2006 appellant, then a 42-year-old clerk, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) for a neck injury that allegedly arose on or about September 5, 2005 due to 

factors of his federal employment. OWCP assigned the claim File No. xxxxxx545. After initially 

denying his claim, it accepted appellant’s occupational disease claim for cervicalgia. OWCP 

subsequently authorized an August 9, 2010 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at C4-5 and 

C5-6, and expanded appellant’s accepted conditions to include cervical spinal stenosis.

Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx480, appellant has a previously accepted occupational 

disease claim for bilateral wrist tendinitis, which arose on or about May 13, 2001. He also has a 

previously accepted occupational disease claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx200, which OWCP 

accepted for right shoulder impingement, left shoulder strain, and bilateral rotator cuff syndrome, 

 

1 The Board further notes that following the January 4, 2019 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 

However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “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. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered 

by the Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this 

evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

with an October 2, 2002 date of injury. The case records associated with appellant’s bilateral wrist 

and shoulder conditions are not currently before the Board.

Under the current cervical injury claim, OWCP File No. xxxxxx545, appellant filed an 

August 25, 2016 claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). In an August 15, 2016 report, Dr. Mike 

Shah, a pain management specialist, found 24 percent right upper extremity permanent impairment 

due to motor and sensory deficits affecting the C6 and C7 nerve roots. In a September 22, 2016 

report, OWCP’s district medical adviser (DMA) found six percent permanent impairment of the 

right upper extremity and two percent permanent impairment of the left upper extremity based on 

a combination of motor and/or sensory deficits affecting the C5 and C6 nerve roots. However, in 

a March 12, 2018 supplemental report, he concurred with Dr. Shah’s finding of 24 percent right 

upper extremity permanent impairment, with an August 15, 2016 date of maximum medical 

improvement.

By decision dated July 26, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule award. It 

noted that, although the DMA concurred with Dr. Shah’s 24 percent right upper extremity spinal 

nerve impairment rating, appellant previously received schedule awards totaling 29 percent 

permanent impairment of the right upper extremity under OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx480 and 

xxxxxx200. As the current 24 percent right upper extremity permanent impairment rating did not 

exceed the prior award(s), OWCP found that appellant was not entitled to additional schedule 

award compensation.

On August 14, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration of the July 26, 2018 decision and 

submitted an August 7, 2018 letter from Dr. Shah.

By decision dated September 12, 2018, OWCP again denied appellant’s claim for a

schedule award due to his accepted cervical condition. It noted his various accepted conditions 

under OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx480 and xxxxxx200 and referenced two related schedule awards 

for bilateral upper extremity permanent impairment. OWCP reiterated that because Dr. Shah’s 24 

percent right upper extremity (cervical-related) impairment rating did not exceed the prior right 

upper extremity award(s), appellant failed to establish entitlement to additional schedule award 

compensation. 

On October 16, 2018 appellant again requested reconsideration. He submitted a 

September 27, 2018 report from Dr. Shah, who distinguished appellant’s current cervical-related 

impairment from the previous wrist- and shoulder-related impairments. Dr. Shah also noted that 

the DMA agreed with his rating of 24 percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity. 

By decision dated January 4, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration. 

The Board finds that this 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, 

videotapes or drawings.2 Evidence may not be incorporated by reference, nor may evidence from 

 

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

(June 2011).
3

“another individual’s” case file be used.3 Evidence contained in another of the claimant’s case 

file(s) may be used, but a copy of that evidence should be placed into the case file being 

adjudicated.4 All evidence that forms the basis of a decision must be in that claimant’s case 

record.5

In adjudicating appellant’s schedule award claim under, OWCP File No. xxxxxx545, 

OWCP specifically referenced information and decisions obtained from his other claims, assigned

File Nos. xxxxxx480 and xxxxxx200. However, it has not administratively combined the abovereferenced case records, or at least incorporated the relevant evidence and/or referenced prior 

schedule award decisions into the current case record.6 As OWCP neglected to include the 

referenced information from File Nos. xxxxxx480 and xxxxxx200 in the current case record, the 

Board is not in a position to make an informed decision regarding whether OWCP properly denied 

merit review of appellant’s current schedule award claim.

7

 Therefore, the case shall be remanded 

to OWCP to administratively combine File Nos. xxxxxx545, xxxxxx480, and xxxxxx200. After 

OWCP has developed the record consistent with the above-noted directive, it shall issue a de novo

decision.

 

3

Id.

4

Id.

5

Id.

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

(February 2000) (cases should be combined when correct adjudication of the issues depends on frequent crossreference between files).

7 See L.H., Docket No. 17-1960 (issued August 16, 2018); K.P., Docket No. 15-1945 (issued February 10, 2016).
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 4, 2019 decision of the Office of 

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

consistent with this order of the Board.

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