United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.J., JR., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISONS, Fort Dix, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1603

Issued: December 3, 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 July 22, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 7, 2019 merit decision and 

a July 8, 2019 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 

The Clerk of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 19-1603.2

On January 31, 2018 appellant, then a 41-year-old chaplain, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that on October 1, 2017 he sustained a broken left pinky finger and 

 

1 Appellant submitted a timely request for oral argument before the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). Pursuant to the 

Board’s Rules of Procedure, oral argument may be held in the discretion of the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(a). In 

support of appellant’s oral argument request, it was asserted that oral argument should be granted because of the facts 

surrounding his assault while in the performance of duty. The Board, in exercising its discretion, denies appellant’s 

request for oral argument because the arguments on appeal can adequately be addressed in a decision based on a 

review of the case record. Oral argument in this appeal would further delay issuance of a Board decision and not serve 

a useful purpose. As such, the oral argument request is denied and this order is based on the case record as submitted 

to the Board.

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

aggravation of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) when he was assaulted by a large group of 

inmates with weapons while in the performance of duty. The case record reflects that under OWCP 

File No. xxxxxx115, OWCP accepted a left pinky finger injury arising from this same incident on 

October 1, 2017 as a traumatic injury. These claims have not been administratively combined. 

By decision dated November 21, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an emotional 

condition. It determined that there was at least one accepted factor of employment, but the medical 

evidence did not substantiate that the diagnosis was caused or aggravated by a compensable 

employment factor.

On December 10, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration. By decision dated March 7, 

2019, OWCP denied modification. It accepted that on October 1, 2017 appellant responded to 

inmate activity and that several inmates with weapons charged at him injuring his left pinky finger. 

However, the medical evidence of record did not substantiate that his preexisting PTSD and 

anxiety conditions were aggravated by the compensable employment factor. 

On April 8, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration. No additional evidence was 

received. By decision dated July 8, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration

without conduction a merit review. 

OWCP’s procedures provide that cases should be administratively combined when correct 

adjudication of the issues depends on frequent cross-referencing between files.3 Its procedures 

provide as an example of when cases should be doubled, if a new claim is filed for a separate injury

that occurred on the same date.4 In the instant claim, OWCP File No. xxxxxx926, appellant filed 

an occupational disease claim for an aggravation of a preexisting emotional condition arising from 

the October 1, 2017 event. OWCP had previously accepted appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx115, for fracture of the left little finger phalanx, arising from the 

same injury on the same date. All evidence that forms the basis of a decision must appear in the 

case record.5 The evidence pertaining to OWCP File No. xxxxxx115, however, is not part of the 

case record presently before the Board. 

As these files have not been administratively combined, the Board is unable to determine 

whether all pertinent evidence submitted in OWCP File No. xxxxxx115 pertaining to the accepted 

October 1, 2017 incident had been reviewed by OWCP in the instant claim.6 The Board thus finds 

that this case is not in posture for decision as the record before the Board is incomplete and would 

not permit an informed adjudication of the case.7 

 

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

(February 2000).

4

Id. 

5 D.B., Docket No. 19-0262 (issued December 31, 2019).

6 See T.L., Docket No. 18-0935 (issued February 25, 2020). 

7 See Order Remanding Case, L.A., Docket No. 19-1248 (issued April 16, 2020). 
3

For a full and fair adjudication, the Board finds that the case must be returned to OWCP to 

administratively combine the current case record with OWCP File No. xxxxxx115 so it can 

properly determine whether appellant has established that his emotional condition was causally 

related to the alleged factors of employment.8 Following this and other such further development 

as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision on the merits of appellant’s claim.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 8 and March 7, 2019 decisions of the Office 

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

consistent with this order of the Board. 

Issued: December 3, 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

 

8 See Order Remanding Case, S.L., Docket No. 20-0208 (issued June 15, 2020); Order Remanding Case, J.N., 

Docket No. 19-1847 (issued April 30, 2020).