United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Carol Stream, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0671

Issued: November 30, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On February 5, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 22, 2020 nonmerit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) under File No. xxxxxx879.1 

The Clerk of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 20-0671. 

On June 10, 2015 appellant, then a 58-year-old general clerk, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that on or before March 10, 2014, she sustained a prolapsed bladder

due to factors of her federal employment, specifically lifting heavy trays of mail into a four-tier 

sorting machine five days a week. In a June 30, 2015 statement, appellant contended that she 

sustained a uterine prolapse on September 17, 2011. She underwent surgical repair in 

December 2011.

In a June 15, 2015 letter, the employing establishment noted that appellant had claimed a 

September 17, 2011 uterine prolapse under OWCP File No. xxxxxx633, denied by OWCP on 

April 19, 2012. 

Prior to appellant’s June 10, 2015 occupational disease claim, appellant also filed two 

previous claims for uterine prolapse. Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx496, she claimed a uterine 

 

1 Appellant timely requested oral argument before the Board. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). In light of the Board’s 

disposition of this appeal, the oral argument request is denied. 
2

prolapse and pelvic relaxation syndrome with bladder leakage due to repetitive heavy lifting on or 

before May 1, 2009. Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx787, appellant claimed a uterine prolapse 

caused by repetitive heavy lifting on or before February 1, 2011. Under OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx633, she claimed a uterine prolapse caused by heavy lifting while in the performance of 

duty on September 17, 2011. OWCP denied these claims. 

In a July 15, 2015 report, Dr. Shamim Y. Patel, a Board-certified obstetrician and 

gynecologist, provided a status of appellant’s condition. She indicated that appellant presented 

with uterine and bladder prolapse, and on December 21, 2011, underwent a robotic-assisted total 

laparoscopic hysterectomy and uterosacral suspension. Dr. Patel opined that lifting 70-pound trays 

for several years “can definitely contribute significantly” to prolapse of the uterus. She further 

opined that postoperatively, appellant “did quite well and was fully healed.” Dr. Patel indicated 

that appellant returned to work performing the same duties of lifting 70-pound trays, as much as 

300 trays per night, which she opined “can again contribute to bladder prolapse.” Dr. Patel 

reported that appellant returned to her office with a new onset of vaginal wall prolapse, and due to 

the severity of the prolapse, she referred her for a “uro gyn” consultation. She noted that another 

surgery was to be scheduled.

In an August 22, 2015 statement, appellant asserted that repetitive heavy lifting at work 

during the previous several years had caused bladder and uterine prolapse. 

By decision dated February 4, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It accepted that the 

March 10, 2014 employment incident occurred as alleged, however, it found that she had not 

established a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the accepted employment incident, 

thus the requirements had not been met for establishing an injury as defined by FECA. 

In a June 22, 2016 letter, appellant requested that OWCP resend the February 4, 2016 

decision. OWCP took no action on appellant’s request.

On a request form dated December 4, 2019, and postmarked December 5, 2019, appellant 

requested a review of the written record by a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and 

Review and submitted evidence.

By decision dated January 22, 2020, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review denied 

appellant’s hearing request. It found that the request was untimely filed as it was postmarked 

December 5, 2019, more than 30 days after its February 4, 2016 merit decision. After exercising 

its discretion, OWCP further found that the issue in the case could equally well be addressed 

through the reconsideration process.

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

decision. OWCP’s procedures provide that cases should be administratively combined where 

correct adjudication depends on cross-referencing between files and where two or more injuries 

occur to the same part of the body.2 There is extensive medical evidence in OWCP File Nos. 

xxxxxx496, xxxxxx633, and xxxxxx787 regarding the claimed conditions. For a full and fair 

 

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

(February 2000).
3

adjudication, the claims in OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx496, xxxxxx633, xxxxxx787, and xxxxxx879 

must be administratively combined. 

Under its procedures, OWCP has determined that cases should be administratively 

combined where a new injury case is reported for an employee who previously filed an injury 

claim for the same part of the body and where correct adjudication depends on cross-referencing 

between files.3 This will allow OWCP to consider all relevant claim files in developing this 

schedule award claim.4

Accordingly, the Board will remand the case to OWCP to administratively combine the 

case records for File Nos. xxxxxx496, xxxxxx633, xxxxxx787, and xxxxxx879. Following this 

and such development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo merit decision on 

appellant’s claim.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 22, 2020 decision of the Office of 

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

proceedings consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: November 30, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3

Id. at Chapter 2.400.8(c)(1); W.W., Docket No. 19-0884 (issued June 16, 2020); L.P., Docket Nos. 18-1558, 

18-1568 (issued June 21, 2019); L.S., Docket Nos. 17-1863, 17-1867, 17-1868 (issued April 18, 2018); W.S., Docket 

No. 15-0969 (issued October 5, 2015); C.C., Docket No. 14-1576 (issued March 9, 2015).

4

Id.