United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

Holtsville, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0911

Issued: December 29, 2022

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, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

On May 26, 2022 appellantfiled a timely appeal from a March 17, 2022 merit decision and 

a March 30, 2022 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 21-0911. 

On April 18, 2006 appellant, then a 39-year-old tax examining technician, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she tripped on a curb in the employing 

establishment parking lot and struck her head on the sidewalk injuringher head, neck, and bilateral 

hips. She stopped work that day and returned to work intermittently thereafter. On July 21, 2006

Dr. Shafi Wani, a Board-certified neurologist, released appellant to full-time, light-duty work. 

OWCP accepted the claim for cervical sprain/strain and closed dislocation unspecified cervical 

vertebra. Appellant continued to obtain medical treatment for her accepted conditions.

On April 12, 2021 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability 

from work for the period March 30 through 31, 2021. In an accompanying certified Time Analysis 

Form (Form CA-7a), she claimed a total of six hours of disability. This included three hours on 

March 30, 2021 and three hours on March 31, 2021 for work-related doctor’s appointments. 

In an April 22, 2021 development letter, OWCP indicated that appellant stopped work on 

March 30, 2021 and that it appeared that she was claiming medical treatment due to a material 

change/worsening of her accepted work-related conditions. It provided a definition of a recurrence 

of disability and informed her of the deficiencies of her claim. Additionally, OWCP advised 
2

appellant of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to establish her claim and provided 

a questionnaire for her completion. It afforded her 30 days to submit the required evidence. In a 

separate letter also dated April 22, 2021, OWCP advised appellant that no action could be taken 

on her claim for compensation beginning March 30, 2021 until her case had been adjudicated as a 

recurrence claim.

In a May 5, 2021 response, appellant explained that she was not claiming a recurrence as 

it was the same condition she had experienced since April 18, 2006, but that her pain had become 

unbearable. She indicated that she had been working full-time light duty since July 2006 and that 

when her pain recently became unbearable, she underwent additional testing at the request of her 

treating physician, Dr. Shafi Wani, a Board-certified neurologist.

OWCP received medical reports dated May 6, July 26, September 27, and November 2, 

2021;duty status reports (Form CA-17) dated April 26 and November 2, 2021; and return-to-work 

notes dated July 26, September 13, and November 3, 2021 from Dr. Wani regarding appellant’s 

medical treatment.

OWCP also received a September 29, 2021 report from Dr. Wani regardinganother patient

of his, who had been involved in an automobile accident on January 29, 2021. This report did not 

pertain to appellant.

By decision dated December 10, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence, 

finding that she had not established that she required additional medical treatment due to a 

worsening of her accepted work-related conditions, without intervening cause. 

On December 17, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. In a December 16, 2021

statement, she indicated that she had not sustained a new injury. Appellant emphasized that she 

never stopped working and had worked full-time light duty with restrictions every day.

OWCP received additional medical records from Dr. Wani, including progress reports

dated September 13, December 14 and 28, 2021, and February 22, 2022; and a return to work note 

dated December 17, 2021. 

By decision dated March 17, 2022, OWCP denied modification of its December 10, 2021 

decision. It noted that “[t]he medical report dated September 29, 2021 from Dr. Wani indicated 

that the claimant was involved in an automobile accident on January 9, 2021....” OWCP thus 

found that the January 2021 automobile accident was an independent intervening event, and that 

the current medical evidence failed to provide an opinion regarding the cause of appellant’s current 

diagnosed conditions that differentiated the effects of the January 2021 automobile accident. 

On March 25, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration. In an attached statement, she

related that she had never been involved in an automobile accident and was not involved in a car 

accident in January 2021. Appellant also repeated her prior contention that she had only sustained 

injury on April 18, 2006. 

Reports from Dr. Wani dated December 14, 2021 and February 22, 2022, previously of 

record, were also received by OWCP. 

By decision dated March 30, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s reconsideration request, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
3

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

decision.

Section 8124(a) of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1(FECA) provides that 

OWCP shall determine and make a finding of fact and an award for or against payment of 

compensation.2Its regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 provide that the decision of the Director of 

OWCP shall contain findings and facts and a statement of reasons.3 As well, OWCP’s procedures 

provide that the reasoning behind OWCP’s evaluation should be clear enough for the reader to 

understand the precise defect of the claim and the kind of evidence which would overcome it.4

The case record establishes that OWCP adjudicated appellant’s Form CA-7 claim for 

compensation as a recurrence claim. However, the CA-7a Time Analysis Form indicates that 

appellant was only claiming three hours of disability on March 30, 2021 and three hours of 

disability on March 31, 2021 due to doctor’s appointments. OWCP’s procedures provide that 

wages lost for compensable medical examinations or treatment may be reimbursed. 5 A claimant

who has returned to work following an accepted injury or illness may need to undergo examination 

or treatment and such employee may be paid compensation for wage loss while obtaining medical 

services and for a reasonable time spent traveling to and from the medical provider’s location.6

For a routine medical appointment, a maximum of four hours of compensation may be allowed. 

The claims for wage loss should be considered on a case-by-case basis.7 As OWCP has not made 

findings of fact or provided a statement of reasons regarding whether appellant has established 

entitlement to wage-loss compensation for up to four hours of time lost for medical treatment on 

March 30 and 31, 2021 causally related to her accepted employment injury, the case must be 

remanded for an de novo decision regarding appellant’s entitlement to wage-loss compensation for 

up to four hours each on March 30 and 31, 2021.

The Board notes that in its March 17, 2022 decision, OWCP based its denial of the 

recurrence claim on the existence of a January 2021 automobile accident as an independent 

intervening event that broke the chain of causation. The Board finds, however, that the evidence 

upon which OWCP explicitly relied in denying appellant’s claim was not in fact medical evidence 

related to appellant, but rather was evidence erroneously submitted by Dr. Wani regarding an 

altogether different patient and completely unrelated and irrelevant to appellant’s medical history 

and condition. Accordingly, 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).

3

20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

4 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5 (February 2013) (all 

decisions should contain findings of fact sufficient to identify the benefit being denied and the reason for the 

disallowance).

5 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Wages Lost for Medical Examination or Treatment, Chapter 

2.901.19 (February 2013).

6

Id. at Chapter 2.901.19.a.

7

Id. at Chapter 2.901.19.c.
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 30 and 17, 2022 decisions of the Office 

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

pursuant to this order of the Board.

Issued: December 29, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board