United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.D., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, NATO 

SPECIAL OPERATIONS HEADQUARTERS, 

Shape, Belgium, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0229

Issued: November 5, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Stephanie N. Leet, 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 8, 2018 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an 

October 15, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk 

of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 19-0229.2

On April 21, 2016 appellant, then a 42-year-old comptroller, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed high blood pressure and end-stage renal failure due 

 

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 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. 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 additional evidence for the first time on 

appeal. Id.
2

factors of his federal employment including the requirement of intensive work hours. He had 

stopped work on June 20, 2014.

In a May 16, 2016 statement, appellant indicated that, from the beginning, his employing 

establishment was understaffed and he routinely worked 12 to 14 hours daily and had to travel 

frequently. He noted that he was the only person in charge of finances, he did not have a qualified 

backup, and handled two budgets, one with North Atlantic Treaty Organization and one with the 

employing establishment which entailed duties involving installations stateside, in Europe, and 

forward bases. Appellant maintained that his diagnosed kidney failure due to hypertension was 

work related. 

Appellant submitted a position description for the comptroller position in addition to 

medical evidence including reports dated June 21, 2014 to September 28, 2015 diagnosing acute 

renal failure requiring long-term hemodialysis from malignant hypertension. 

In a letter dated July 15, 2015, the Office of Personnel Management notified appellant that

he was found to be disabled from his position as comptroller due to acute renal failure and 

malignant hypertension. 

In a development letter dated June 27, 2016, OWCP requested that the employing 

establishment provide information regarding appellant’s claim and forwarded his statements for 

its response. 

By decision dated July 13, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that appellant 

had established compensable factors of employment, but had not established causal relationship 

between those employment factors and his diagnosed medical condition. It further found that the 

employing establishment had not responded to its requests for information and found that the 

claimed work events had occurred as alleged. 

On July 3, 2017 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted a 

May 6, 2017 report from Dr. Fabienne Mestrez, an attending nephrologist. 

By decision dated October 3, 2017, OWCP denied modification of the July 13, 2016 

decision finding that the evidence submitted was insufficient for appellant to meet his burden of 

proof to establish causal relationship.

On May 1, 2018 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted a

February 16, 2018 report from Dr. Mestrez. 

By decision dated July 24, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the claim. 

On September 19, 2018 appellant, through counsel, again requested reconsideration and 

submitted additional medical evidence. 

By decision dated October 15, 2018, OWCP denied modification of its prior decisions

finding that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish causal relationship. 
3

OWCP procedures provide that a statement of accepted facts (SOAF) is required before 

adjudication of a stress-related claim, indicating that, due to the complex nature of this type of 

claim, it is necessary that the facts be established and documented in a SOAF.3 It did not properly 

develop appellant’s claim as stress related consistent with its own procedures. As such, the Board 

finds that this case is not in posture for decision as further development of the claim is required. 

On remand OWCP shall prepare a SOAF establishing and documenting the facts of the 

emotional stress claim. After this and any such further development as may be deemed necessary, 

it shall issue a de novo decision.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 15, 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: November 5, 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

 

3 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Statement of Accepted Facts, Chapter 2.809.2d(3) 

(June 2011).