United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, LAFAYETTE

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION FACILITY, 

Lafayette, LA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1565

Issued: February 10, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 13, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from March 1 and May 4, 2018 merit 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction over the merits of this case.3

 

1 The Board notes that, during the pendency of this appeal, OWCP issued an August 27, 2018 decision denying 

modification of the May 4, 2018 decision that is the subject of the current appeal. The Board and OWCP may not 

simultaneously exercise jurisdiction over the same issue. 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c)(3), 10.626. See W.D., Docket No. 

19-1124, n3 (issued October 22, 2019); Arlonia B. Taylor, 44 ECAB 591 (1993); Douglas E. Billings, 41 ECAB 

880 (1990). Consequently, OWCP’s August 27, 2018 decision is set aside as null and void.

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal and to OWCP following the May 4, 2018 

decision. 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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP has met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

entitlement to medical benefits; and (2) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish 

a recurrence of the need for medical treatment causally related to her December 14, 2017 

employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 14, 2017 appellant, then a 55-year-old mail processor lead clerk, filed a

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she sustained stabbing pain in her 

right heel and increased right knee pain when pushing containers to a machine to continue loading 

while in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for an unspecified sprain of the right 

foot.

Appellant received treatment at the emergency department on December 14, 2017 for right 

foot pain. In a duty status report (Form CA-17) of even date, Dr. Stephanie Humble, Boardcertified in family medicine, diagnosed a right foot sprain and provided limitations. 

On December 15, 2017 appellant accepted a limited-duty position offered by the 

employing establishment. 

In a report dated January 8, 2018, Dr. James Noriega, a podiatrist, obtained a history of 

appellant experiencing pain in her right heel after walking and standing at work loading mail onto 

machines. He noted that x-rays showed no fracture. Dr. Noriega diagnosed right foot pain and 

plantar fascial fibromatosis. 

In progress reports dated January 29, 2018, Dr. Noriega diagnosed plantar fascial 

fibromatosis and right foot pain and referred appellant for physical therapy. In a Form CA-17 of 

even date, he provided the same diagnoses and checked a box marked “yes” that the history 

provided by her was the same as that on the form of her injuring both feet pushing heavy equipment 

and standing for prolonged periods. Dr. Noriega indicated that appellant could perform her usual 

employment with the exception of intermittently lifting up to 35 pounds rather than 70 pounds.

On January 30, 2018 Dr. Noriega requested that OWCP authorize physical therapy for 

appellant. 

In a February 7, 2018 Form CA-17, Dr. Noriega diagnosed plantar fascial fibromatosis and 

right foot pain, checked a box marked “yes” indicating that the history provided by appellant 

corresponded to that on the form and listed work restrictions. 

OWCP advised appellant on March 1, 2018 that it had closed her case as the January 29, 

2018 Form CA-17 had indicated that she could resume work without restrictions. 

On March 13, 2018 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) of the need for 

medical treatment beginning December 29, 2017 causally related to her accepted employment 

injury. She indicated that she had performed modified employment following her injury. 

Appellant asserted that she required physical therapy for her condition.
3

In a development letter dated April 3, 2018, OWCP advised appellant of the type of 

evidence necessary to establish an employment-related recurrence of the need for medical 

treatment. It afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence. No response was received.

By decision dated May 4, 2018, OWCP found that appellant had not established that she 

sustained a recurrence of the need for medical treatment causally related to her accepted 

employment injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

The right to medical benefits for an accepted condition is not limited to the period of 

entitlement for disability compensation.4 To terminate authorization for medical treatment, OWCP 

must establish that appellant no longer has residuals of an employment-related condition which 

require further medical treatment.5

OWCP’s procedures provide that pretermination notice is required before terminating a 

claimant’s entitlement to medical benefits unless the treating physician provides that additional 

treatment “is not necessary or treatment has ended.”

6

OWCP’s procedures further provide that a decision is not necessary regarding a claim for 

a recurrence of a medical condition when the recurrence is only for medical care “and there has 

been no release from care or significant gap in treatment.”

7

 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

entitlement to medical benefits.

OWCP accepted appellant’s December 14, 2017 traumatic injury claim for a right foot 

sprain. Appellant received medical treatment for her condition on the date of injury and thereafter 

on January 8 and 29 and February 7, 2018. In a January 29, 2018 progress report, Dr. Noriega 

diagnosed plantar fascial fibromatosis and right foot pain and referred her for physical therapy. 

He completed a Form CA-17 of even date providing that appellant could resume work with 

limitations on lifting of up to 35 pounds intermittently.

On March 1, 2018 OWCP advised appellant that her claim was closed for medical benefits 

after finding that Dr. Noriega had released her to resume her usual employment in the January 29, 

2018 Form CA-17. The Board finds that this March 1, 2018 communication constitutes a final 

adverse decision of OWCP over which it has jurisdiction.8 As discussed, however, to terminate 

entitlement to medical benefits, it must show that appellant has no further residuals of her 

 

4 See K.W., Docket No. 19-1224 (issued November 15, 2019); T.P., 58 ECAB 524 (2007).

5

Id.

6 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.4(a)(8) (February 2013). 

7

Id. at Chapter 2.1500.3(e)(2) (June 2013).

8 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3.
4

employment-related condition which require further medical treatment.9 OWCP procedures 

provide that it must also issue a pretermination notice unless the attending physician provides that 

further medical treatment is unnecessary.10 Dr. Noriega had not released appellant from care and 

there had been no significant gap in her obtaining medical treatment. Therefore, the Board finds 

that OWCP improperly terminated her entitlement to medical benefits as it failed to follow the 

necessary procedures.11

On remand, OWCP should reinstate her entitlement to medical benefits.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

entitlement to medical benefits.12

 

9 Supra note 4; see also S.S., Docket No. 17-0781 (issued August 1, 2018).

10 Supra note 6.

11 In light of the Board’s findings as to issue 1, issue 2 is rendered moot. The Board notes that appellant had not 

been released from medical treatment for her accepted employment injury and was requesting further treatment.

12 Upon return of the case record OWCP shall administratively remove all evidence relating to a different claimant’s 

claim. 
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 4 and March 1, 2018 decisions of the Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs are reversed.

Issued: February 10, 2020

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board