United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF 

DIPLOMATIC SECURITY, Arlington, VA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Nos. 22-0695; 22-0696

Issued: December 16, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Stephanie Leet, Esq., for the appellant

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 April 4, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an October 8, 2021 

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) under OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx966. The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0695. On April 4, 2022

appellant, through counsel, also filed a timely appeal from a separate October 8, 2021 merit 

decision of OWCPunder OWCP File No. xxxxxx198. The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned 

Docket No. 22-0696. 

Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx966, on February 17, 2021 appellant, then a 37-year-old 

security administrator/senior watch officer, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging 

that on May 20, 2018 he sustained depression and aggravation of post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD) due to witnessing an explosion near the employing establishment’s base in Baghdad, Iraq, 

while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on the date of the claimed injury. On the 
2

reverse side of the claim form, S.S., appellant’s supervisor, acknowledged that the claimed injury 

occurred in the performance of duty.1 

On March 29, 2021 appellant filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that on May 20, 2018 

he sustained depression and aggravation of PTSD due to being involuntarily detained at his 

workplace in Baghdad, Iraq, while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim

form, appellant’s supervisor, S.S., acknowledged that the claimed injury occurred in the 

performance of duty. OWCP assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx198. 

By decision dated April 8, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim 

under OWCP File No. xxxxxx966, finding that he failed to establish a compensable employment 

factor. On April 15, 2021 appellant, requested a telephonic hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review in connection with OWCP’s April 8, 2021 decision.

By decision dated May 19, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim 

under OWCP File No. xxxxxx198, finding that he failed to establish a compensable employment 

factor. On May 24, 2021 appellant, requested a telephonic hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review in connection with OWCP’s May 19, 2021 decision.

A hearing, held on August 4, 2021, concerned both OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx966 and 

xxxxxx198, as well as appellant’s traumatic injury claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx597.

2

 

By decision dated October 8, 2021, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the April 8, 

2021 decision under OWCP File No. xxxxxx966. 

By separate decision dated October 8, 2021, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

May 19, 2021 decision under OWCP File No. xxxxxx198. 

The Board has duly considered this matter and finds that the cases on appeal are not in 

posture for decision.

1 Appellant had previously filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) on February 9, 2021 alleging 

depression and aggravation of PTSD due to harassment. He noted that he first became aware of his conditions on 

October 8, 2009 and realized their relation to his federal employment on May 20, 2018. OWCP assigned that claim 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx968 and accepted it for aggravation of PTSD, major depressive disorder, and somatic symptom 

disorder. On February 19, 2021 appellant filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 19, 2018 

he sustained depression and aggravation of PTSD due to a dog alert and a car bomb explosion while in the performance 

of duty. OWCP assigned that claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx597 and accepted it for aggravation of PTSD, major 

depressive disorder, and somatic symptom disorder. Appellant’s claims in OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx968 and 

xxxxxx597 have been administratively combined with the former serving as the master file. Appellant also has an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) under OWCP File No. xxxxxx972, filed on February 15, 2021, alleging an 

emotional condition due to factors of his federal employment including responding to senior leadership emails, 

working long stressful hours doing sensitive work shifts with continuous overtime, and working a heavy workload in 

an understaffed and life-threatening environment. OWCP has not issued a decision in OWCP File No. xxxxxx972.

Appellant’s claims have not been administratively combined with the present claims. 

2 OWCP’s hearing representative advised that the August 4, 2021 hearing would not concern appellant’s 

occupational disease claims under OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx968 and xxxxxx972, which concerned alleged workplace 

harassment, long hours, and heavy workloads. 
3

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

adjudication depends on cross-referencing between files and when two or more injuries occur to 

the same part of the body.

3

 As appellant’s claims under OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx966, xxxxxx198, 

xxxxxx597, xxxxxx968, and xxxxxx972 all allege emotional conditions, such as depression and 

aggravation of PTSD, these claims shall be administratively combined for a full and fair 

adjudication. This will allow OWCP to consider all relevant claim files and accompanying 

evidence in developing appellant’s claims.4 

Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue 

de novo decisions regarding appellant’s emotional condition claims in OWCP File Nos. 

xxxxxx966 and xxxxxx198.

5

3 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, File Maintenance and Management, Chapter 2.400.8(c)(1) 

(February2000); V.G., Docket No. 19-0670 (issued April30, 2020); L.P., Docket Nos. 18-1558, 18-1568 (issued 

June 21, 2019); L.S., Docket Nos. 17-1863, 17-1867, 17-1868 (issued April18, 2018); W.S., Docket No. 15-0969 

(issued October 5, 2015); C.C., Docket No. 14-1576 (issued March 9, 2015).

4 D.J., Docket No. 20-0997 (issued November 20, 2020); S.D., Docket No. 19-0590 (issued August 28, 2020). 

5 Upon return of the case record, OWCP shall also review the evidence in a ll of these claim files to determine 

whether or not any of them constitute a duplicate claim. This will allow OWCP to avoid piecemeal adjudication of 

the issues in these cases and raise the possibility of inconsistent results. It is the Board’s policy to avoid such an 

outcome. See M.S., Docket No. 13-1024 (issued January 14, 2014); WilliamT. McCracken, 33 ECAB 1197 (1982).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 8, 2021 decisions of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs are set aside, and the cases are remanded to OWCP for further 

proceedings consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: December 16, 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