United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING 

CENTER, Glynco, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0074

Issued: September 2, 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 October 23, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 4, 2020 nonmerit decision 

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

docketed the appeal as No. 21-0074.

On September 1, 2015 appellant, then a 56-year-old program analyst, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 21, 2015 she bruised her left knee and scraped 

her hands, face, and the front of her body when she slipped and fell on loose sand on the pavement 

when walking towards the employing establishment parking lot, while in the performance of duty. 

OWCP accepted the claim for contusion and effusion of the left knee. On February 12, 

2018 it expanded acceptance of the claim to include left knee medial meniscus tear, and 

aggravation of primary osteoarthritis, left knee.

In a December 11, 2018 report, Dr. J. Kevin Brooks, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon,

requested that the acceptance of appellant’s claim be expanded to include a right shoulder 

condition. He alleged that due to continuous and excessive stress placed on the right shoulder 

through the use of an assistive device, appellant developed severe tendinosis and tear of her 
2

supraspinatus and of her proximal biceps tendons. Dr. Brooks explained that the proximal biceps 

tendon is lodged in a groove that also runs between the acromion and the head of the humerus and 

is easily impinged. He opined that the infraspinatus and subscapularis tendinosis was a clear 

indication of the excessive force placed through the shoulder to destabilize the shoulder joint every 

time appellant shifted her body weight into the assistive device to take a step. Dr. Brooks also 

opined that due to the findings on the October 26, 2016 magnetic resonance image (MRI) scan, 

new diagnoses included a complete tear of the right rotator cuff and a labral tear of the long head 

of the right biceps tendon. In a separate letter dated December 11, 2018, he requested that 

acceptance of appellant’s claim be expanded to include a right knee condition. Dr. Brooks

explained that appellant’s current right knee condition was due to overcompensation of her gait 

due to her left knee injury. 

On January 22, 2019 then-counsel for appellant requested that the acceptance of appellant’s 

claim be expanded to include a right shoulder and right knee condition.

By a May 30, 2019 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s request to expand the acceptance 

of her claim to include a consequential injury, as the evidence of record did not demonstrate that 

the weakness or impairment was caused by the accepted work-related injury or led to an 

aggravation of the original injury or a new injury.

OWCP subsequently received a May 27, 2019 letter from then-counsel for appellant. 

Counsel argued that the claims examiner had scheduled an examination without addressing the 

issues related to expansion of the claim. He submitted copies of Dr. Brooks’ December 11, 2018 

reports.

On May 25, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration. In an attachment to her request for 

reconsideration, she submitted arguments in support of her request to expand the acceptance of her 

claim. Appellant noted that her treating physician, Dr. Brooks, provided a report dated 

December 11, 2018, with detailed rationale in support of expanding her claim to include her right 

shoulder and right knee conditions. She argued that the second opinion physician “obviously” did 

not read any of these reports, nor did he look at her MRI scan, which was performed after onset of 

pain due to using her assistive device while recovering from left knee surgery. Appellant noted 

that the second opinion physician “specifically told me on several occasions that he was not going 

to read any of Dr. Brooks’ medical notes, letters, x-rays, or MRI’s.” She also argued that the 

second physician’s reports were erroneous because he claimed she had preexisting conditions, and 

she denied having preexisting conditions and related that her conditions arose after her injury.

By decision dated June 4, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of her claim.

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

Section 8124(a) of FECA (5 U.S.C. § 8124(a)) provides that OWCP shall determine and 

make findings of fact and make an award for or against payment of compensation. Its regulations 

at 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 provide that the decision of the Director of OWCP shall contain findings of 

fact and a statement of reasons. As well, OWCP’s procedures provide that the reasoning behind 
3

OWCP’s decision should be clear enough for the reader to understand the precise defect of the 

claim and the kind of evidence which would overcome it.1

In the June 4, 2020 decision, OWCP summarily denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration and did not reference or discuss the argument or evidence submitted after the 

May 30, 2019 merit decision. In its decision, it did not discharge its responsibility to set forth 

findings of fact and a clear statement of reasons explaining the disposition so that appellant could 

understand the basis for the decision, i.e., why the argument and evidence submitted on 

reconsideration was insufficient to meet any of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3), 

warranting further merit review. This case must therefore be remanded to OWCP for an 

appropriate decision on appellant’s reconsideration request that describes the evidence submitted 

on reconsideration and provides detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting the reconsideration 

request,

2 pursuant to the standards set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 8124(a) and 20 C.F.R. § 10.126. 

Accordingly, 

 

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

2

See R.T., Docket No. 19-0604 (issued September 13, 2019); T.M., Docket No. 17-1609 (issued December 4, 

2017); J.J.,Docket No. 11-1958 (issued June27, 2012).
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 4, 2020 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: September 2, 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