United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Chicago, IL, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1357

Issued: March 30, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On June 4, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 30, 2019 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

docketed this appeal as No. 19-1357.

On December 21, 2018 appellant, then a 62-year-old mail processing clerk, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 20, 2018 she sustained a head 

contusion when the bar from an all-purpose container (APC) fell and struck her in the head while 

in the performance of duty. In an attached statement, she explained that as she was loading boxes 

into the lower rack of the APC, the top rack popped open and slammed down onto the top of her 

head. Appellant indicated that she sustained a knot on her head and experienced headaches due to 

the incident. On the reverse side of the claim form, her supervisor indicated that she stopped work 

the same day and returned to work on December 24, 2018.

 

1 Appellant submitted additional evidence with her appeal. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides that 

“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

Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx767, appellant has a prior OWCP claim accepted on 

April 12, 1989 for tenosynovitis of the hands and wrists, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, a 

displaced cervical intervertebral disc, and a complete left rotator cuff rupture due to factors of her 

federal employment.

In support of her claim, appellant provided a February 23, 2019 narrative medical report 

from Dr. Samuel Chmell, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Chmell diagnosed appellant 

with multi-level cervical disc protrusion with radiculopathy as a result of the December 20, 2018 

work incident. He explained that, when appellant was struck on the head by the heavy APC door, 

she sustained a severe axial load to her cervical spine. Dr. Chmell explained that axial loads such 

as this are a common cause of serious cervical spine injuries. He also made note of appellant’s 

history of treatment in relation to the December 20, 2018 employment incident.

By decision dated April 30, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that her medical condition was causally related to 

the accepted December 20, 2018 employment incident. It noted that medical evidence contained 

in OWCP File No. xxxxxx767 referenced the conditions noted in Dr. Chmell’s report a significant 

number of years prior in relation to a December 3, 1988 date of injury.

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 another individual’s case file be used.3 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.4 All evidence that forms the basis of a decision must be in 

that claimant’s case record.5

In adjudicating the present claim, OWCP File No. xxxxxx535, OWCP referenced the facts 

and medical conclusions obtained from OWCP File No. xxxxxx767.6 However, it has not 

administratively combined the two case records or incorporated the referenced evidence into the 

 

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

(June 2011).

3

Id.; G.K., Docket No. 18-1594 (issued March 8, 2019).

4

Id.

5

Id.

6 G.K., supra note 3.
3

current case record.7 The Board is therefore not in a position to make an informed decision 

regarding appellant’s entitlement to FECA benefits.8

Furthermore, OWCP’s procedures provide that cases should be administratively combined

when correct adjudication of the issues depends on frequent cross-referencing between files.9 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.10

Here, the medical evidence of record in OWCP File No. xxxxxx767 provides a diagnosis 

of cervical disc displacement with radiculopathy in relation to appellant’s cervical spine prior to 

the December 20, 2018 date of injury. Appellant then filed a traumatic injury claim for the same 

body part, assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx535, which is the claim presented before the Board. 

The evidence pertaining to OWCP File No. xxxxxx767, however, is not part of the case record 

presently before the Board.

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

combine the current case record with OWCP File No. xxxxxx767, and determine whether appellant 

has provided sufficient rationalized medical evidence to establish a cervical spine condition 

causally related to the December 20, 2018 employment incident. Following this and such further 

development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision.

 

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

(February 2000) (cases should be combined when correct adjudication of the issues depends on frequent crossreferencing between files); G.K., supra note 3.

8 See G.K., supra note 3; C.R., Docket No. 17-1262 (issued May 21, 2018); K.P., Docket No. 15-1945 (issued 

February 10, 2016); M.C., Docket No. 15-1706 (issued October 22, 2015).

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

(February 2000).

10 Id.; D.L., Docket No. 18-0592 (issued February 6, 2019); K.T., Docket No. 17-0432 (issued August 17, 2018).
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 30, 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: March 30, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board