United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Schaumburg, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1724

Issued: June 14, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

On September 13, 2018 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 16, 

2018 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) under OWCP 

File No. xxxxxx087. The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 18-1724.2 The 

Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

On May 5, 2015 appellant, then a 68-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational disease

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained left hip and bilateral knee conditions due to walking 

while in the performance of duty for over 40 years. He noted that he first became aware of his 

 

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, following the July 16, 2018 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 additional 

evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

claimed conditions on January 10, 2010 and first realized their relation to his federal employment 

on April 17, 2015. Appellant did not stop work. OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File 

No. xxxxxx087.

By decision dated June 17, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between the diagnosed medical 

condition and the accepted employment factors.

On August 27, 2015 appellant filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging a 

right hip condition due to 41 years of working as a letter carrier. OWCP assigned that claim OWCP 

File No. xxxxxx796 and on December 7, 2015 accepted it for aggravation of bilateral hip 

osteoarthritis. 

By decision dated February 9, 2016, in OWCP File No. xxxxxx087, an OWCP hearing 

representative set aside the June 17, 2015 decision and remanded the case for further development 

of the evidence. She found that the opinion of Dr. Ankur Chhadia, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon and sports medicine physician, while not sufficiently rationalized, was sufficient to 

warrant further development of the medical evidence. 

On February 26, 2016 OWCP referred appellant, along with the case record and a statement 

of accepted facts (SOAF), for a second opinion evaluation with Dr. Allan Brecher, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, to determine the nature and extent of any employment-related 

conditions and resultant disability. The attached SOAF stated that OWCP had not accepted any 

conditions arising out of the accepted employment factor of walking for 40 years as a letter carrier.

In a March 30, 2016 report, Dr. Brecher, based upon a review of the medical evidence, and 

the SOAF, diagnosed arthritis of the hips and knees. He noted that appellant had degenerative 

arthritis involving multiple joints, which was part of the natural aging process, and which did not 

limit his work capability. Dr. Brecher opined that appellant’s arthritis conditions were part of the 

natural aging process. He explained that appellant’s work duties had not aggravated his arthritis 

conditions as he was able to perform his full-duty job. He indicated that appellant could return to 

his regular duties one month after his last arthroscopy. 

By decision dated May 9, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim under OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx087, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal 

relationship. It found the weight of the medical opinion evidence rested with the well-rationalized 

opinion of OWCP’s referral physician, Dr. Brecher, who concluded that appellant’s bilateral knee 

osteoarthritis had not been caused or aggravated by the accepted employment factors. 

Appellant subsequently requested a hearing and submitted additional medical evidence 

from Dr. Chhadia diagnosing bilateral knee and left hip osteoarthritis, which he opined were work

related. The reports contained findings repetitive of his prior reports. By decision dated March 28, 

2017, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the denial of appellant’s claim. 

Appellant continued to submit additional medical evidence from Dr. Chhadia and, on 

April 17, 2018, requested reconsideration. By decision dated July 16, 2018, OWCP denied 

modification of its prior decision, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to 
3

establish causal relationship between his diagnosed conditions and the accepted factors of his 

federal employment.

The record in OWCP File No. xxxxxx087 does not contain any reference to appellant’s 

claim in File No. xxxxxx796. In light of the fact that appellant had identified the same hip 

condition and the same employment factors in both OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx087 and xxxxxxx796, 

it is essential for OWCP to consolidate the claim files and determine whether they are duplicate 

claims. This will allow OWCP to consider all relevant claim files in developing appellant’s claims. 

Moreover, to consider appellant’s appeals at this state would involve a piecemeal adjudication of 

the issues involved and raise the possibility of inconsistent results. It is the Board’s policy to avoid 

such an outcome.3 Because it is essential for the Board to review the medical evidence contained 

in both case files in order to render a full and fair adjudication of the present appeals, this case 

must be set aside and remanded to OWCP to administratively combine File Nos. xxxxxx087 and 

xxxxxx796 to be followed by any necessary further development and a de novo decision on the 

merits of the claim.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 16, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded to OWCP for further action 

consistent with this order.

Issued: June 14, 2019

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3 See William T. McCracken, 33 ECAB 1197 (1982).