United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.E., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISONS, Florence, CO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1039

Issued: January 13, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On April 16, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 24, 2020 merit decision 

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

docketed the appeal as No. 20-1039.

1

On July 22, 2019 appellant, then a 37-year-old corrections officer, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 19, 2019 at 2:30 p.m., he suffered an allergic reaction

while in the performance of duty after drinking water from a water dispenser which had been

recently sanitized. He alleged that some of the disinfectant made contact with his lip, causing an 

allergic reaction. In a July 22, 2019 narrative statement, appellant indicated that when he filled 

his thermal drinking cup with ice and water from the dispenser in the health services department,

he noticed the smell of Oxivir antiseptic wipes in the air. While drinking his ice water from his 

cup, he noticed a slight tingling sensation on his upper lip where it came into contact with the cup. 

When he refilled his cup approximately five minutes later from the same dispenser, he noticed that 

his lip felt irritated after drinking. Appellant left his shift at approximately 3:00 p.m. When he 

1 The Board notes that,following the February24, 2020 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

arrived home, his lip was swollen. Appellant called his supervisor to inform him of the situation 

and left for the emergency room. While en route to the emergency room, he called 911 at 

approximately 3:45 p.m. as his tongue, mouth, and throat began to swell. Appellant indicated that 

one of the active ingredients in the Oxivir antiseptics wipes, Dodocylbenzene sulfuric acid, had 

caused him allergic reactions since he was a child.

Appellant submitted a safety data sheet for Oxivir TB, a photograph of his swollen lip, a 

July 19, 2019 hospital after visit summary, a July 19, 2019 hospital emergency department 

encounter, signed by Dr. Paul E. Numsen, an osteopath Board-certified in emergency medicine,

and a July 19, 2019 patient care report. In response to OWCP’s January 22, 2020 development 

letter, which advised appellant of the deficiencies in the medical evidence and the type of medical 

evidence needed to support his claim, appellant submitted a February 17, 2020 report from

Dr. Gary A. Mohr, a family medicine specialist.

By decision dated February 24, 2020, OWCP denied the claim, finding that “the medical 

evidence of record does not demonstrate that the claimed medical condition is related to the 

established work-related event(s)....” It also denied appellant’s claim “because the factual 

component of the third basic element, Fact of Injury, has not been met.” The decision continued 

that “the evidence does not support that the injury and/or event(s) occurred.”

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

decision.2 FECA provides that OWCP shall determine and make findings of fact in making an 

award for or against payment of compensation after considering the claim presented by the 

employee and after completing such investigation as it considers necessary with respect to the 

claim.3 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

In the February 24, 2020 decision, OWCP initially found that the medical evidence did not 

demonstrate the claimed medical condition was related to the established work-related event(s). 

However, it further found that the evidence did not support that the claimed event(s) occurred as 

alleged. As these findings are conflicting, OWCP 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, as well as the precise defect and the evidence needed to 

overcome the denial of his traumatic injury claim.5

2

See M.H., Docket No. 19-1187 (issued August 7, 2020); N.M.,Docket No. 17-0262 (issued July 3, 2017).

3

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.125.

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

B.S., Docket No. 20-1008 (issued November 13, 2020); G.S.,Docket No. 14-1933 (issued November 7, 2014).

5 N.D., Docket No. 20-0131 (issued September 11, 2020); J.S.,Docket No. 18-0513 (issued March 1, 2019); R.M., 

Docket No. 19-0163 (issued July 17, 2019); K.J., Docket No. 14-1874 (issued February 26, 2015); J.J., Docket No. 

11-1958 (issued June27, 2012).
3

Accordingly, the Board will remand the case to OWCP to make appropriate findings 

regarding appellant’s traumatic injury claim. Following this and other such development as

deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 24, 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: January 13, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board