United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SOUTH JERSEY 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Belmawr, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0578

Issued: March 6, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

On January 24, 2018 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

September 29, 2017 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

The Clerk of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 18-0578. 

On August 6, 2015 appellant, then a 43-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she injured her right thigh and upper leg when she was 

struck by a hamper container at work. She asserted that the hamper hit her on her right thigh and 

jarred her entire body. By decision dated October 16, 2015, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for 

right leg and thigh contusion.

On November 25, 2015 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for leave 

without pay beginning September 21, 2015. The attached time analysis form (Form CA-7a) 

 

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

indicated that she used 240 hours of leave without pay from September 21 through 

October 30, 2015. Following development of the medical evidence, by decision dated 

September 29, 2017, OWCP’s hearing representative found that there was no medical evidence 

establishing appellant’s inability to work from September 21 through October 30, 2015 due to her 

accepted leg conditions.2 He further found that the weight of the medical evidence did not support 

“a cervical condition” as a result of the August 6, 2015 employment incident. However, the

hearing representative relied on medical evidence from OWCP File No. xxxxxx647 which was 

accepted for a right shoulder strain. 

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that this case is not in posture for 

decision. OWCP procedures provide that cases should be combined when correct adjudication of 

the issues depends on frequent cross-referencing between files. If a new injury case is reported 

for an employee who previously filed an injury claim for a similar condition or the same part of 

the body, doubling is required.3 In the instant case, OWCP’s hearing representative found that 

there was relevant evidence in appellant’s right shoulder claim, OWCP File No. xxxxxx647 which 

he considered in reaching his decision in the present claim, OWCP File No. xxxxxx912. Evidence 

pertaining to OWCP File No. xxxxxx647, however, is not found in the case record presently before 

the Board. 

For a full and fair adjudication, the case must be returned to OWCP to combine the current 

case record with OWCP File No. xxxxxx647, and determine whether appellant has provided 

sufficient rationalized medical opinion evidence to establish that she sustained total disability due 

to her federal employment from September 21 through October 30, 2015 and whether she 

established a cervical condition causally related to an August 6, 2015 employment injury.4

Following this and such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo

decision.

 

2

In reviewing appellant’s prior medical history, OWCP’s hearing representative also mentioned two medical 

reports from OWCP File No. xxxxxx647. There is no other evidence suggesting that OWCP has administratively 

combined OWCP File No. xxxxxx647 with the current file.

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

(February 2000).
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 29, 2017 decision of the Office of 

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

consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: March 6, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board