United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

H.O., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, TAMPA BUSINESS 

MAIL ENTRY UNIT, Tampa, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0198

Issued: July 3, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On November 7, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 17, 2018 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). By that decision OWCP 

denied her claim for a recurrence of the need for medical treatment causally related to her accepted 

July 10, 2007 employment injury. The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 

19-0198. 

On August 23, 2007 appellant, then a 60-year-old bulk mail technician, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she injured her knees, neck, and lower back on July 10, 

2007 when she tripped and fell while in the performance of duty. The record reflects that OWCP 

accepted the claim for bilateral knee contusions as of July 16, 2007.

1

 However, OWCP did not 

issue a formal decision notifying appellant of the acceptance. 

Appellant came under the care of Dr. Francisco Torres, Board-certified in physical 

medicine, rehabilitation, and pain management, who requested authorization for physical therapy 

for the “pelvis/thigh[-]joint pain.” 

 

1 OWCP’s integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS) lists the accepted condition as contusion 

of knee, bilateral, ICD-9 924.11. 
2

OWCP denied the request on March 16, 2009, due to lack of causal relationship. It

identified the accepted conditions as bilateral knee contusions and right knee meniscus tear.

On July 2, 2014 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a). In a development 

letter dated July 16, 2014, OWCP noted that her claim was for additional medical care for the 

accepted conditions of bilateral knee contusions and right knee medial meniscus tear.

By decision dated December 4, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for additional 

medical treatment. It found that the medical evidence of record was of insufficient rationale to 

establish that she required additional medical treatment due to a worsening of the accepted 

conditions of bilateral knee contusions and right knee medial meniscus tear.

On July 16, 2018 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a), noting that she was 

claiming medical treatment only. In a development letter dated August 15, 2018, OWCP informed 

her that it had received her CA-2a form regarding a need for additional medical care for your 

accepted work-related condition of contusion of knee, bilateral. OWCP provided a questionnaire 

for appellant’s completion and requested that she submit additional factual and medical evidence 

in support of her claim. 

Appellant subsequently submitted a completed development questionnaire and additional 

medical evidence from Dr. Torres.

By decision dated September 17, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for additional 

medical treatment as she did not establish that the requested treatment was due to a worsening of 

her “accepted work[-]related conditions, without intervening cause.” It noted that her claim was 

accepted for contusion of knee, bilateral.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, concludes that the case is not in posture for 

decision. In its March 16, 2009 denial of authorization, OWCP advised Dr. Torres that the 

accepted conditions were bilateral knee contusions and tear of the meniscus of the right knee. 

Similarly, in its July 16, 2014 development letter regarding the July 2, 2014 Form CA-2a, it noted 

the same accepted conditions when apprising her of the necessary evidence to establish her 

recurrence claim. When it denied that claim on December 4, 2014, OWCP again noted bilateral 

knee contusions and tear of the meniscus of the right knee as the accepted conditions. It was not 

until its August 15, 2018 development letter, advising appellant of the necessary evidence to 

establish her July 16, 2018 Form CA-2a, that OWCP failed to note the accepted right knee 

meniscal tear condition. OWCP then failed to address the accepted right knee meniscal tear 

condition in its September 17, 2018 denial. 

The Board finds that OWCP’s September 17, 2018 decision failed to provide findings fact 

and a statement of reasons in denying appellant’s recurrence claim.2 OWCP did not discharge its 

responsibility to set forth findings of fact and a clear statement of reasons explaining the 

disposition. It did not explain why she had not established a recurrence of the need for medical 

 

2 5 U.S.C. § 8124(a) provides that OWCP shall determine and make a finding of facts and make an award for or 

against payment of compensation. 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 provides in pertinent part that the final decision of OWCP shall 

contain findings of fact and a statement of reasons.
3

treatment due to both of her accepted conditions, so that she could understand the basis for the

decision as well as the precise defect and the evidence required to establish the recurrence claim.3 

The case must be returned to OWCP for a proper decision which includes findings of fact 

and a clear and precise statement regarding denial of appellant’s claim for a recurrence of the need 

for medical treatment. Following this and such further development as OWCP deems necessary, 

it shall issue a de novo decision.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 17, 2018 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: July 3, 2019

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5(c) (February 2013).