United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL AIR 

WARFARE CENTER AIRCRAFT DIVISION, 

Lakehurst, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1036

Issued: December 22, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Brett E. Blumstein, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 16, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a February 3, 

2020 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).2 Pursuant to the 

 

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 February 3, 2020 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

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish disability from work

beginning February 18, 2019 causally related to his accepted March 7, 2016 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 9, 2016 appellant, then a 56-year-old aircraft launching and arresting gear 

mechanic, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on March 7, 2016 he sustained 

multiple facial fractures, cuts, and contusions while in the performance of duty when he was struck 

by the lid of a shipping box that exploded. He stopped work on March 7, 2016. OWCP accepted 

the claim for an unspecified closed fracture of facial bones. It subsequently expanded acceptance 

of the claim to include a closed fracture of nasal bones, a closed fracture of other specified skull 

and facial bones (septum), bilateral tinnitus, and chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls from April 21 through 

June 3, 2017.4 

In a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) dated February 7, 2018, the employing 

establishment advised that appellant had resumed limited-duty work on July 3, 2017

In a report dated January 10, 2019, Dr. Karim Ghobrial-Sedky, a Board-certified 

psychiatrist, related that he and his colleagues had been treating appellant for depression, anxiety, 

and PTSD following a March 7, 2016 employment injury. He advised that appellant had continued 

nightmares, PTSD, loss of sleep, depression. Dr. Ghobrial-Sedky related, “[Appellant] has been 

complaining of chest pains and nausea in the morning from going to work and has been stressed 

by the situation.” He recommended that he stop work due to his increased symptoms and “go on 

worker[s’] compensation.”

On March 14, 2019 appellant filed a Form CA-7 claiming disability for the period 

February 18 through March 1, 2019.

In a March 21, 2019 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit a 

comprehensive report from his treating physician supported by objective findings explaining how 

his condition had worsened such that he was unable to work beginning February 18, 2018. It 

afforded him 30 days to submit the requested information.

Appellant continued to file CA-7 forms requesting wage-loss compensation for disability.

In a report dated April 18, 2019, Dr. Ghobrial-Sedky noted that on March 7, 2016 a plastic 

container filled with flammable aerosol cans, propane, and metal pipes had exploded, injuring 

 

3 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4 By decision dated March 6, 2018, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for four percent binaural hearing 

loss. The period of the award ran for eight weeks from January 3 to February 27, 2018.
3

appellant and a coworker. Appellant had been admitted for three days to the hospital and 

underwent nasal and sinus surgeries. Dr. Ghobrial-Sedky discussed his diagnosis of depression 

and chronic PTSD due to the trauma. He related that appellant had continued nightmares, 

insomnia, and panic attacks affecting his physical recovery subsequent to resuming work on 

July 3, 2017. Dr. Ghobrial-Sedky noted that he had been moved from the work location where the 

incident had occurred, but was told that the move was temporary. Appellant related that his PTSD 

had worsened when he visited his former work location and a manager forced him to leave. 

Dr. Ghobrial-Sedky related “He reports PTSD related to going back to his old job. He also has 

anxiety related to the uncertainty of the future.” Dr. Ghobrial-Sedky recommended a review of 

appellant’s records to better understand the extent of his injuries and possible neuropsychological 

testing for memory and cognitive issues. He found that appellant could not return to his work 

location due to PTSD and depression. 

By decision dated June 19, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation beginning February 18, 2019 and continuing.

In a report dated October 7, 2019, Dr. Sara A. Epstein, a Board-certified psychiatrist,

discussed appellant’s history of an injury on March 7, 2016 when hazardous materials exploded. 

She noted that he had been relocated to another worksite, but not provided with a desk or a place 

to sit. Appellant had to tell his supervisor if he left the room even for the bathroom. He had 

returned to his prior work location, but his supervisor made him leave. Dr. Epstein diagnosed 

PTSD, major depression, status post facial trauma with multiple surgeries, carpal tunnel syndrome, 

bilateral hernias, and tinnitus. She opined that appellant could not work at the location where the 

explosion occurred to prevent an aggravation of PTSD. Dr. Epstein advised that he was unable to 

currently work due to his preoccupation with past trauma, depression, weight loss, fatigue, 

difficulty concentrating, slowness of thought, and feelings of worthlessness. 

Regarding his PTSD, Dr. Epstein noted that, in March 2017, the physicians treating 

appellant for his physical injuries had released him to resume work, but that his mental health 

providers had found that he could not travel or work where the injury had occurred. Management 

had provided him with conflicting information about who should handle his reasonable 

accommodation claim. Appellant was told that there were no positions available for him and 

“literally pushed out of a retirement luncheon” at his old work location. In August 2018, he had 

been released to resume work at his old work location. In December 2018, appellant had declined 

an offer of a voluntary separation. In January 2019, his physician recommended that he receive 

workers’ compensation benefits as his condition was “escalating.” Dr. Epstein related that, due to 

“all the conflicting reports and opinions, claimant felt overwhelmed, confused about who was 

right, and even more hypervigilant than after the explosion, in that he felt an urgent need to be on 

top of everyone’s actions in his case all the time, lest he lose everything.” 

Dr. Epstein opined that appellant’s feelings of worthlessness had increased since he was 

transferred to another location without a desk and “being forcibly barred from a friend’s retirement 

luncheon....” She listed incidents that had occurred with management from June 2017 to 

February 2019. Dr. Epstein related that appellant had “spent the better part of two years in an 

office where he had no desk, with no assignments, then told he had to get out -- which effectively 

destroyed such little self-esteem as he had left.” She noted that appellant feelings of depression 

and worthlessness “began after his injury [of] March 2016, increased as the powers that be 

somehow could not find him any form of employment and went on to walk him toward 
4

retirement/separation.... To him, it appears he was punished for sustaining a serious injury.”

Dr. Epstein opined that appellant was totally disabled from employment.

On January 14, 2020 counsel requested reconsideration.

By decision dated February 3, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its June 19, 2019 

decision. It found that Dr. Epstein had attributed his condition to intervening incidents and 

administrative matters rather than the March 7, 2016 employment injury.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

A recurrence of disability means an inability to work after an employee has returned to 

work, caused by a spontaneous change in a medical condition, which resulted from a previous 

injury or illness without an intervening injury or new exposure to the work environment that caused 

the illness.5 Recurrence of disability also means an inability to work that takes place when a lightduty assignment made specifically to accommodate an employee’s physical limitations due to his 

work-related injury or illness is withdrawn or when the physical requirements of such an 

assignment are altered so that they exceed his established physical limitations.6 

A recurrence should be reported on Form CA-2a if that recurrence causes the employee to 

lose time from work and incur a wage loss, or if the employee experiences a renewed need for 

treatment after previously being released from care.7 However, a notice of recurrence should not 

be filed when a new injury, new occupational disease, or new event contributing to an already 

existing occupational disease has occurred.8 In these instances, the employee should file Form 

CA-1 or CA-2.9

The Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual provides additional guidance as to when a Form 

CA-2a should be filed. OWCP’s procedures provide in relevant part that a recurrence of disability 

does not include a work stoppage caused by “[a] condition which results from a new injury, even 

if it involves the same area of the body previously injured, or by renewed exposure to the causative 

agent of a previously suffered occupational disease.”

10

 If a new work-related injury or exposure 

occurs, Form CA-1 or CA-2 should be completed accordingly.11

When an injury arises in the course of employment, every natural consequence that flows 

from that injury likewise arises out of the employment, unless it is the result of an independent 

 

5 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x).

6

Id.

7

Id. at § 10.104(a).

8

Id.

9

Id.

10 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.3c(5) (June 2013).

11 Id.
5

intervening cause attributable to the claimant’s own intentional misconduct.12 Thus, a subsequent 

injury, be it an aggravation of the original injury or a new and distinct injury, is compensable if it 

is the direct and natural result of a compensable primary injury.13 

The Board has recognized PTSD as a compensable consequential injury under 

circumstances where a certain triggering event has been medically demonstrated to have caused a 

reawakening or exacerbation of PTSD symptoms.14

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision.

OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation for disability from April 21 through June 3, 

2017 due to his accepted March 7, 2016 employment injury. Appellant returned to full-time 

modified employment on July 3, 2017. He stopped work and filed claims for compensation 

beginning February 18, 2019 due to a worsening of his accepted PTSD. OWCP denied appellant’s

claims, finding that the medical evidence had attributed his condition to intervening incidents that 

had occurred subsequent to the March 7, 2016 employment injury and to administrative matters 

unrelated to the accepted employment injury.

On April 18, 2019 Dr. Ghobrial-Sedky discussed appellant’s history of an injury on 

March 7, 2016 when a container exploded. He diagnosed depression and chronic PTSD due to the 

accepted employment injury. Dr. Ghobrial-Sedky advised that appellant’s PTSD had increased 

after he visited his former work location and a manger instructed him to leave. Appellant was also 

told that his move from the work location where the incident occurred was temporary and that he 

would be returned to his former workplace. Dr. Ghobrial-Sedky found that appellant could not 

return to his work location due to his PTSD.

In an October 7, 2019 report, Dr. Epstein reviewed appellant’s history of injury. She found 

that he was currently unable to work due to his preoccupation with the trauma from the 

employment injury, depression, and feelings of worthlessness. Dr. Epstein’s diagnoses included 

PTSD and major depression. She noted that appellant’s condition had worsened when he returned 

to his prior work location for a retirement luncheon, but was forced to leave. Dr. Epstein advised 

that he had worked for two years without a desk or assignments, and that being told to leave had 

increased his sense of worthlessness. 

Both Dr. Ghobrial-Sedky and Dr. Epstein found that appellant’s PTSD had worsened after 

he had returned to the work location where the employment-related March 7, 2016 explosion had 

occurred, but was instructed to leave by the employing establishment. As noted, the Board has 

recognized PTSD as a potential compensable consequential injury under circumstances where a 

certain triggering event has been medically demonstrated to have caused a reawakening or 

 

12 See C.H., Docket No. 20-0228 (issued October 7, 2020); Mary Poller, 55 ECAB 483, 487 (2004).

13 See C.W., Docket No. 19-1747 (issued September 2, 2020); Susanne W. Underwood (Randall L. Underwood), 

53 ECAB 139 (2001).

14 See B.I., Docket No. 18-0253 (issued August 2, 2018); P.H., Docket No. 15-0482 (issued August 4, 2015).
6

exacerbation of PTSD symptoms.15 The Board has further held that, in cases involving a diagnosis 

of PTSD, the provisions of Chapter 2.1500.3c(5) of OWCP’s procedures requiring the filing of a 

new claim with exposure to new work factors will not always be applicable.16 OWCP, however, 

has not adjudicated whether appellant sustained a consequential injury through an exacerbation of 

his accepted PTSD. The Board, therefore, finds that the case must be remanded for OWCP to 

evaluate the medical evidence to determine if he sustained a consequential condition resulting from 

his March 7, 2016 employment injury and whether such a condition caused disability on or after 

February 18, 2019.

17

 After such further development as deemed necessary, it shall issue a de novo

decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 3, 2020 decision of the Office of 

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

consistent with this opinion of the Board.

Issued: December 22, 2020

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

15 See id.

16 See supra note 14.

17 C.W., Docket Nos. 18-1764 and 19-0709 (issued August 27, 2020).