United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Oklahoma City, OK, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0935

Issued: February 25, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On April 3, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 1, 2018 nonmerit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

docketed the appeal as No. 18-0935. 

On June 6, 2012 appellant, then a 52-year-old mail handler, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA 2) alleging that he sustained a back injury due to standing and leaning against a 

rest bar in the performance of duty. This claim was assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx830. On 

June 18, 2012 OWCP accepted the claim for lumbar strain. On April 9, 2015 it expanded

acceptance of this claim to include depressive disorder, anxiety state and bipolar disorder. On 

May 28, 2015 OWCP issued a notice of proposed rescission relating that acceptance of the claim 

should not have been expanded, but rather appellant should have been advised to file a claim for a 

new injury. 

On May 12, 2015 appellant filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that

he sustained stress and anxiety in the performance of duty. He related that he continued to work 

 

1 The Board notes that, following the March 1, 2018 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

while in pain and it was very stressful deciding whether to take time off work and not be paid, or 

work in pain. Appellant also noted that his workdays and schedule was changed following his 

accepted injury, which caused stress.2 He stopped work on February 15, 2015. This claim was 

assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx822. The employing establishment noted that appellant had prior 

claims.3 

On June 24, 2015 OWCP received a supplemental statement from appellant. Appellant

related that he had an accepted claim for a back condition under OWCP File No. xxxxxx830 and 

had originally claimed that his stress condition was consequential to that claim. 

By decision dated November 5, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim on the factual 

component of the third basic element, fact of injury, because the evidence did not support that the 

injury and/or event(s) occurred. 

On October 17 and November 8, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration. He referred to 

his prior claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx830. 

By decision dated January 13, 2017, OWCP denied modification of the prior decision. 

On January 11, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration. In a separate letter, he indicated 

that he had not received any response to his medical documentation as to why he developed his 

emotional condition. Appellant referred to prior injuries and indicated that they greatly affected 

him physically. He also submitted additional medical evidence. 

By decision dated March 1, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration,

finding that the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant review of its prior decision. It also 

explained that it appeared that he was claiming a consequential injury due to accepted work injuries 

and that he should file a consequential injury under one or all of his accepted claims.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, finds that the case is not in posture for 

decision. 

In the March 1, 2018 decision denying appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits 

of his claim, OWCP related that, based on appellant’s request for reconsideration, it appeared that 

he was claiming a consequential injury due to his accepted employment injuries. It indicated that 

appellant should file a consequential injury claim under one or all of his accepted injury claims. 

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

adjudication of the issues depends on frequent cross-referencing between files.4 In the instant 

 

2

In an April 2, 2015 statement, P.A., appellant’s manager, indicated that she worked with appellant for over 10 

years as his manager. She explained that, as his manager, she had to change his tours and work hours to accommodate 

his work restrictions. P.A. indicated that this caused stress for appellant. 

3 The record reflects that appellant has six prior claims dating from August 15, 2008 to April 9, 2012. OWCP File 

No. xxxxxx830 has been combined with OWCP File No. xxxxxx823, with the former serving as the master file.

4 D.M., Docket No. 19-0340 (issued October 22, 2019); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, File 

Maintenance and Management, Chapter 2.400.8(c) (February 2000).
3

claim, OWCP File No. xxxxxx822, appellant has alleged stress and anxiety while continuing to 

work in pain following his accepted June 6, 2012 occupational disease claim in OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx830. In denying appellant’s request for reconsideration on March 1, 2018 in the instant 

claim, and advising appellant to file a consequential injury claim in his accepted claim, OWCP did 

not acknowledge that it has accepted depressive disorder, anxiety state and bipolar disorder in 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx830.

As these files have not been administratively combined, the Board is unable to determine 

whether all pertinent evidence had been reviewed by OWCP in the instant claim.

The record before the Board does not contain the evidence from the June 6, 2012 

occupational disease claim, OWCP File No. xxxxxx830, thus precluding a full and proper 

adjudication of the issues presented in OWCP File No. xxxxxx822. The Board thus finds that the 

case is not in posture for decision as the record as provided by OWCP is incomplete and would 

not permit an informed adjudication of the case. The case must therefore be remanded to OWCP 

to administratively combine the File Nos. xxxxxx830 and xxxxxx822 and for further 

reconstruction and development as it may deem necessary, to be followed by an appropriate 

decision.5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 1, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this order of the Board. 

Issued: February 25, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

5 See T.M., Docket No. 18-0887 (issued February 21, 2019).