United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.R., Appellant

and

ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

Clayton, MO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Nos. 19-1780 & 21-0411

Issued: December 10, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On August 26, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 15, 2019 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). On January 29, 2021 he filed a 

timely appeal from a December 23, 2020 nonmerit decision of OWCP. The Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards docketed the appeals as Nos. 19-1780 and 21-0411, respectively.

On February 26, 1990 appellant, then a 34-year-old former officer with St. Louis County 

Police Department (SLCPD), filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) under OWCP File 

No. xxxxxx140, alleging that he developed a stress disorder due to factors of his federal

employment, including emotional and psychiatric problems related to his undercover work with 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He noted that he first became aware of his condition 

and its relation to factors of his federal employment on March 1, 1998. Appellant alleged that the 

FBI was aware of his condition within 30 days. His assignment with the FBI ended in July 1985. 

Appellant stopped working for the SLCPD on February 3, 1986. On March 7, 1994 he received 

state workers’ compensation benefits.

By decision dated October 3, 1991, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim 

as untimely filed. Appellant subsequently requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.
2

By decision dated May 22, 1992, OWCP’s hearing representative found that appellant’s 

emotional condition claim was timely filed, butthat he had not established that he was an employee 

of the FBI, and thus a federal employee in accordance with section 8101(1)(B) of the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act1(FECA). 

On March 21, 2016 appellant alleged that he was an employee of the FBI at the time of his 

employment injury and asked that his claim be reopened. He submitted additional evidence.

In a letter dated April 19, 2016, OWCP informed appellant that the record of his claim had 

been destroyed and requested documents to recreate his claim file.

On December 24, 2016 appellant filed an incomplete notice of law enforcement officer’s 

injury or occupational disease (Form CA-721a) under OWCP File No. xxxxxx070, alleging that 

he developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to an alleged May 21, 1984 employment 

incident. He provided a statement of even date and noted that he last worked for the SLCPD on 

February 3, 1986. Appellant noted that he had previously submitted medical evidence regarding 

his PTSD in OWCP File No. xxxxxx140.

In a January 27, 2017 development letter, OWCP requested additional factual information 

from appellant regarding his specific status as a law enforcement officer engaged in the 

apprehension of any person for the commission of a crime against the United States.

By decision dated April 13, 2017, in OWCP File No. xxxxxx070, OWCP denied 

appellant’s claim finding that he had not established his injury occurred under circumstances 

involving 5 U.S.C. § 8191. On April 18, 2017 appellant requested an oral hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

By decision dated February 2, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative set aside the April 13, 

2017 decision and remanded for OWCP to determine if appellant’s claim was timely filed in 

accordance with its procedures.2

By decision dated April 26, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim in OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx070 finding that it was untimely filed.

On December 31, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration of the April 26, 2018 decision.

By decision dated March 29, 2019, OWCP denied modification of the April 26, 2018 

decision.

On April 23, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration of the May 22, 1992 decision.(RD

By decision dated August 15, 2019, in OWCP File No. xxxxxx140, OWCP reopened

appellant’s claim for consideration of the merits. It found that his claim was timely filed, and 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.;§ 8191. 

2 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2--Claims, Non-Federal Law Enforcement Officers, Chapter 4.0200.6 

(September 1994).
3

determined that the December 21, 1984 deputation form established that appellant was a federal 

employee effective that date through June 30, 1985. OWCP further found that he had established 

compensable factors of employment including the December 1984 purchase of handguns and rifles 

from two indicted criminals, overwork, and interactions with armed subjects who were under the 

influence of narcotics or alcohol. It also found that events that occurred prior to his deputation on 

December 21, 1984 were not compensable as appellant was not a federal employee within the 

meaning of FECA prior to that date. OWCP denied that the additional factual events he alleged 

occurred in the performance of duty. It further found that none of the medical evidence submitted 

was sufficient to establish appellant’s emotional condition claim.

On September 28, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration of the March 29, 2019 

decision.

By decision dated December 23, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

The Board, having duly considered this matter, finds that these cases are not in posture for 

decision.

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

adjudication of the issues depends on frequent cross-referencing between case files.3 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.4 In OWCP File Nos xxxxxx070 and 

xxxxxx140, appellant has alleged PTSD arising from the same employment events. For a full and 

fair adjudication, the cases must be remanded to OWCP to administratively combine OWCP File 

No. xxxxxx070, with OWCP File No. xxxxxx140, so it can consider all the evidence submitted in 

adjudicating appellant’s PTSD claims. After the evidence in both claims has been combined, 

OWCP shall delete OWCP File No. xxxxxx070, as it is duplicative. OWCP shall then consider 

all of the evidence of record and issue a de novo decision on appellant’s emotional condition claim

in OWCP File No. xxxxxx140.

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

(February2000); T.D., Docket No. 20-1119 (issued January 29, 2021); R.R., Docket No. 19-0368 (issued 

November 26, 2019).

4

Id.; M.B.,Docket No. 20-1175 (issued December 31, 2020); L.M.,Docket No. 19-1490 (issued January 29, 2020).
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 15, 2019 and December 23, 2020 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are set aside and the cases are 

remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: December 10, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board