United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

PERRY POINT VETERANS AFFAIRS 

MEDICAL CENTER, Perry Point, MD, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0133

Issued: June 8, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On November 4, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an August 24, 

2021, merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of 

the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 22-0133.

On November 30, 2020 appellant, then a 61-year-old nurse, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed a left ankle sprain with tendonitis, right tarsal 

tunnel syndrome, right plantar fascia tear with tendinopathy, and closed nondisplaced fracture of 

fifth metatarsal left foot with a peroneus brevis tear due to factors of her federal employment, 

including repetitive standing, pushing, lifting, walking, and stretching. She indicated that she first 

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

became aware of her condition on August 20, 2020 and that it was related to her federal 

employment on October 5, 2020. OWCP assigned this claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx388. 

Appellant had previously filed a Form CA-1 on December 30, 2019 alleging that on 

December 26, 2019 she sustained a sprain of a ligament of left ankle when her leg became tangled 

in an oxygen tube. OWCP assigned this claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx975. 

In a development letter dated December 8, 2020, in the instant claim, OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx388, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of her claim. It advised her regarding 

the type of medical evidence necessary to establish her claim and provided 30 days for her to 

submit the requested evidence. 

In response, appellant submitted a report dated October 12, 2020, from Dr. Scott 

Newcomb, a podiatrist. She had informed him that she rolled her foot, tripped and fell on the 

sidewalk on October 5, 2020 in California. Dr. Newcomb also related that appellant placed a lot 

of pressure on her right foot and may have developed tarsal tunnel syndrome. He diagnosed her

with left foot pain, contusion of left foot, and closed nondisplaced fracture of fifth metatarsal bone 

of left foot. 

OWCP received reports dated September 17, October 15 and 30, and November 12, 2020,

from Dr. Jennifer Seifert, a podiatrist. Dr. Seifert stated that appellant related that her left foot

symptoms began following an employment injury that occurred on December 26, 2019. Appellant 

also related that she sustained a fall on October 5, 2020 when she tripped and fell on the sidewalk 

in California. She attributed the fall to the weakness in her left foot and ankle from the 

December 2019 work incident. Dr. Seifert diagnosed appellant with closed nondisplaced fracture 

of fifth metatarsal bone, left foot and tarsal tunnel syndrome,right side. 

By letter dated December 10, 2020, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s 

current claim indicating that her previous left ankle claim had been denied. The employing 

establishment also noted that she had traveled to California and injured her right ankle while she 

was off work. 

In a work capacity evaluation form (OWCP-5c) dated December 16, 2020, Dr. Seifert 

diagnosed appellant with peroneal tendonitis, left leg, and stated that appellant was unable to 

perform her work duties. 

On December 31, 2020 appellant submitted a narrative statement in response to OWCP’s 

development letter. She alleged that her federal employment required her to physically lift, stand, 

walk stretch, sit, and push and pull. Appellant also explained that she was injured at work on 

December 26, 2019 and was diagnosed with a left acute ankle sprain and tendonitis. She attested

that she returned to work prematurely after this injury which caused stress and strain to her right 

foot. Appellant noted that, on October 5, 2020 while visiting her family in California, she fell and 

sustained an injury to her left ankle. She indicated that she had been out of work since 

August 21, 2020. 

In a note dated January 14, 2020, Dr. Seifert related a diagnosis of left foot closed 

nondisplaced fracture of the fifth metatarsal bone. She also indicated that appellant could not 

return to work. 
3

In a letter dated February 1, 2021, Dr. Seifert related that appellant sustained an injury to 

her left foot while at work in December 2019. She then sought treatment for appellant’s for right 

foot pain due to overcompensation in September 2020. Appellant subsequently sustained a left 

foot metatarsal fracture that was initially evaluated by another physician on October 12, 2020. 

Dr. Seifert diagnosed appellant with right foot plantar fasciitis and tarsal tunnel syndrome and

opined with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that all treatment the patient received had

been related to her initial injury which occurred in December 2019. 

In a note dated February 11, 2021, Dr. Seifert diagnosed closed nondisplaced fracture of 

fifth metatarsal bone of left foot, plantar fasciitis, right foot, peroneal tendinitis, left leg, and tarsal 

tunnel syndrome of right side. She also related that appellant was unable to return to work. 

By decision dated March 2, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as causal relationship 

was not established between the diagnosed medical conditions and the accepted employment 

factors. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury or 

medical condition causally related to the accepted employment factors. 

On March 31, 2021 appellant, through counsel, timely requested a telephonic hearing 

before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, which was held on 

July 7, 2021. At the telephonic hearing, appellant contended that she initially injured her left foot 

which altered her gait and subsequently caused her further injury to her right foot. She asserted 

that Dr. Seifert submitted the requisite narrative medical report. 

In a note dated May 13, 2021, Dr. Seifert related that appellant could return to modified

work, withstanding and walking limited to 20 minutes at a time. 

By decision dated August 24, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its March 2, 2021,

decision. 

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

decision.

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

adjudication of the issues depend on frequent cross-referencing between the files.2 For example, 

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 Herein, appellant filed a sprain of a 

ligament of left ankle assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx975 on December 30, 2019. The evidence 

pertaining to OWCP File No. xxxxxx388, however, is not part of the case record presently before 

the Board. 

2

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

(February2000).

3

Id.; D.C., Docket No. 19-0100 (issued June3, 2019); N.M., Docket No. 18-0833 (issued April18, 2019); K.T., 

Docket No. 17-0432 (issued August17, 2018).
4

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

combine the current case record with OWCP File No. xxxxxx975. Following this and such further 

development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 24, 2021, decision of the Office of 

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

consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: June 8, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board