United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________________________________________

D.H., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, EMPLOYEE 

BENEFITS SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Atlanta, GA, Employer

________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Nos. 20-0041 & 20-0261

Issued: February 5, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 4, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 26, 2019 merit decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 20-0041. On October 16, 2019 she filed a timely appeal from a 

September 30, 2019 merit decision of OWCP and the Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned 

Docket No. 20-0261. Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1(FECA) and 20 

C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.2

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the September 30, 2019 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

ISSUES

The issue are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that the 

acceptance of her claim should be expanded to include an emotional condition causally related to 

the accepted April 9, 2013 employment injury; and (2) whether appellant has met her burden of 

proof to establish a recurrence of total disability commencing March 6, 2014 causally related to 

her accepted April 9, 2013 employment injury and an expansion of the accepted work-related 

conditions in her shoulders and neck.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 10, 2013 appellant, then a 44-year-old pension investigator, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 9, 2013 she developed soreness on her right side 

after she was involved in a motor vehicle accident while in the performance of duty. On the reverse 

side of the claim form, appellant’s supervisor acknowledged that she was injured while in the 

performance of duty and that she stopped work at 12:00 a.m. on April 10, 2013. 

OWCP subsequently received a statement from a supervisory investigator who recounted 

that while appellant was operating a government vehicle, a tire blew out on “18-wheeler” in front 

of her, causing her to hit some large truck tire debris. The supervisory investigator further noted 

that appellant nearly lost control of her vehicle and hit the median wall. 

On May 14, 2013 OWCP accepted the claim for neck sprain and bilateral shoulder sprain. 

In a May 16, 2013 report, Dr. Rashante Harris, a family medicine specialist, noted 

appellant’s history of injury and diagnosed muscle spasms and strains. She noted that appellant 

had not been able to work since the date of her injury; however, she was capable of returning to 

work on May 13, 2013 without limitations. Appellant returned to full-time, regular-duty work on 

May 17, 2013.

In reports dated February 17 and 24, 2014, Dr. Aly Ahmed, a psychiatrist, indicated that 

appellant had been receiving treatment since June 2013 for severe depression, post-traumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD), and severe anxiety with panic attacks.3 He opined that the onset of her symptoms 

began during a traumatic accident which had left appellant with bilateral shoulder, neck, and upper 

back pain. Dr. Ahmed noted that appellant had suffered from chronic pain daily and that due to 

the severity of her symptoms he opined that her cognitive and psychological level of functioning 

had declined.4 He indicated that due to her work-related conditions that she was unable to work. 

In a March 5, 2014 narrative statement, appellant indicated that she was undergoing 

treatment for severe depression, PTSD, and severe anxiety with panic attacks. She requested that 

the acceptance of her claim be expanded to include these additional conditions.

 

3 Dr. Ahmed indicated that appellant also received counseling from Dorothy Watts, a licensed clinical social 

worker, and he cosigned her reports.

4 Appellant submitted physical therapy notes in support of her claim.
3

On March 7, 2014 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability 

from work for the period March 6 to 7, 2014.

In a March 19, 2014 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of her wage-loss 

claim. It noted that she had returned to full-time, regular-duty employment on May 17, 2013 and 

if she was claiming a total disability from work from March 6 to 7, 2014, then she should have 

filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a). OWCP indicated that no further action would be taken 

on her request for wage-loss compensation.

On March 21, 2014 appellant filed a Form CA-7 wage-loss compensation claim for 

disability from work for the period March 10 to 21, 2014.

In a report dated March 6, 2014, Dr. Sharrona S. Williams, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, diagnosed shoulder strain, neck sprain, rotator cuff syndrome, and cervical radiculopathy 

due to an April 9, 2013 employment injury. 

In a letter dated March 25, 2014, OWCP again advised appellant of the deficiencies of her 

wage-loss compensation claims, noting that she had returned to full-time, regular duty on 

May 17, 2013. It again advised that she should have filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) 

and thus no further action would be taken on her requests for wage-loss compensation. 

OWCP subsequently received progress reports dated February 17, 2014 and February 4, 

2015 by Dr. Ahmed who diagnosed major depressive disorder and panic disorder. Dr. Ahmed

noted that the onset of her symptoms began during her traumatic accident which led to bilateral 

shoulder, neck, back pain. He explained that she suffered from chronic, daily pain and due to the 

severity of her symptoms her cognitive and psychological level of functioning declined such that 

she was unable to complete any job functions and was thus totally disabled from work.

On April 26, 2014 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) claiming wage-loss 

compensation for total disability commencing January 6, 2014, and indicating that she had stopped 

work on March 6, 2014.5

In support of her claimed recurrence, appellant submitted a narrative status report dated 

March 6, 2014, in which Dr. Williams advised that appellant was totally disabled from work as of 

that date. In a visit status report dated March 27, 2014, Dr. Williams advised that appellant was 

capable of returning to work with restrictions of no lifting over five pounds and no reaching or 

working above shoulder level. Appellant also submitted a March 31, 2014 note, from Ms. Watts 

who indicated that she was totally disabled from work for the period February 19 to July 19, 2014. 

In an April 10, 2014 development letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of 

her recurrence claim. It requested additional factual and medical evidence and provided a 

questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. 

 

5 A time analysis form (Form CA-7a) dated March 31, 2014 indicated that appellant had not worked from March 6 

to 27, 2014, per her physician’s orders. 
4

In a statement dated April 22, 2014, appellant indicated that while working there was no 

particular reason why her injury had worsened, but it did so without any intervening cause, and 

she experienced constant chronic pain in both shoulders and her neck.

Thereafter, in support of her recurrence claim, appellant submitted a March 27, 2014 report 

by Dr. Williams who diagnosed cervical degenerative disc disease with cervical strain with 

bilateral upper extremity radiculopathy, left greater than right; cervical trigger points; bilateral 

subacromial impingement with rotator cuff tendinitis; and bilateral acromioclavicular (AC) joint 

arthritis.

Appellant also submitted a March 12, 2014 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the 

left shoulder which demonstrated a small, full-thickness nonretracted tear of the supraspinatus, 

tendinosis of the infraspinatus, mild osteoarthritis/fibrosseous expansion of the AC joint, and small 

subacromial enthesophyte/spur. A March 17, 2014 MRI scan of the cervical spine revealed an 

essentially unremarkable cervical spine with no evidence of disc extrusion, stenosis, or facet 

arthropathy.

By decision dated May 13, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claimed recurrence, finding 

that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a recurrence of disability, commencing 

March 6, 2014, causally related to the accepted April 9, 2013 employment injury. 

Appellant subsequently submitted a May 1, 2014 report from Dr. Williams who reiterated 

her prior diagnoses and a February 4, 2015 report from Dr. Ahmed who indicated that appellant 

was unable to complete any job functions due to her emotional conditions.

On May 12, 2015 appellant, through her then-counsel, requested reconsideration. 

In support of the reconsideration request, appellant submitted a report dated August 21, 

2014, in which Dr. Williams reiterated her diagnoses and the factual and medical history of 

appellant’s accepted April 9, 2013 employment injury. Dr. Williams reported that appellant’s 

neck sprain had improved and her cervical radiculopathy had resolved, but she did not have full 

resolution of her subacromial impingement and rotator cuff tendinitis and recommended surgical 

intervention for these conditions. She also opined that appellant was able to return to work in a 

modified-duty position with restrictions on overhead activities, but once treatment was allowed, 

she would be able to return to full duty without restrictions. 

By decision dated August 3, 2015, OWCP denied modification of its May 13, 2014 

recurrence decision. 

On August 2, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted an August 7, 2014 

report in which Dr. Williams reiterated the diagnoses contained in her prior reports.

On August 2, 2016 OWCP received a report dated August 20, 2014, in which Dr. Timothy 

Ghattas, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed full-thickness rotator cuff tear, arthritis 

of AC joint, impingement syndrome of the shoulder region, and biceps tendinitis. Dr. Ghattas

indicated that appellant was seen for a surgical evaluation of her left shoulder following an injury 

which had occurred in April 2013.
5

In an August 22, 2016 report, Dr. Mark W. Feeman, an osteopath Board-certified in 

physiatry, diagnosed left shoulder full-thickness tear of the supraspinatus with tendinosis and some 

osteoarthritis at the AC joint, subacromial bone spur (left rotator cuff tear), bilateral C5-6 

radiculopathy (cervical radiculopathy), impingement syndrome of right shoulder, impingement 

syndrome of the left shoulder, and carpal tunnel syndrome of the right and left upper limb. He

indicated that her chronic pain in the cervical spine and both shoulders were sudden in onset and 

began more than three years prior.

In a work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c) dated November 23, 2016 and a report 

dated December 8, 2016, Dr. Walter Hill, a psychiatrist, diagnosed major depressive disorder and 

panic disorder due to a chronic back and shoulder injury. He opined that appellant’s emotional 

conditions arose out of and in the course of her employment which contributed to her injuries and 

impairments. Dr. Hill identified severe depression symptoms and severe anxiety. Based upon the 

medical record and history of injury he identified PTSD which had symptoms including 

flashbacks, insomnia, panic attacks, hopelessness, and crying spells.

On January 3, 2017 appellant, through her then-counsel, requested reconsideration.

In a letter dated February 3, 2017, OWCP notified appellant that it had received a request 

for expansion of her claim on March 5, 2014, however, that it was mis-indexed and as such 

afforded appellant 30 days to submit evidence in furtherance of her expansion claim. It indicated 

that it was her burden to submit evidence sufficient to establish any additional conditions. OWCP

requested additional evidence in support of appellant’s claim, including a medical report with a 

physician’s rationalized medical opinion fully explaining how any current diagnosis of an 

emotional condition was causally related to the accepted employment injury. It afforded her 30 

days to submit additional evidence.

Appellant subsequently submitted a series notes dated October 22, 2013 through 

November 30, 2015 from Ms. Watts regarding treatment for her emotional conditions. 

Appellant also submitted a February 8, 2017 report from Dr. Hill who indicated that since 

2013 appellant had reported severe anxiety, panic attacks, flashbacks, insomnia, and feeling 

overwhelmed from environmental and psychosocial stressors. Dr. Hill reiterated that she had been 

diagnosed with major depressive disorder, panic disorder, and PTSD and further indicated that she 

suffered from significant symptoms, such as severe depressed mood, poor concentration, low 

energy, crying spells, diminished appetite, flashbacks, night terrors, insomnia, panic attacks, 

feelings of hopelessness, as well as chronic shoulder and back pain. He opined that due to 

appellant’s symptoms, she had had significant deficits in her cognitive, emotional, and 

psychological functioning. Dr. Hill explained that as a result of her emotional conditions she 

experienced loss of energy, limited interest in activities of living, poor concentration, and isolation 

from friends and family. He further explained that appellant’s emotional distress was causally 

related to the conditions from her workplace injury which had caused her to experience chronic 

pain daily and isolated her from her family and friends.

By decision dated May 10, 2017, OWCP denied expansion of appellant’s claim to include 

an emotional condition as caused or aggravated by her accepted work-related conditions of neck 
6

sprain and bilateral shoulder sprain. It found the record did not contain medical evidence to 

support causal relationship between the accepted compensable factor and diagnosed conditions.

By decision dated May 11, 2017, OWCP denied modification of its August 3, 2015 

decision which denied her claimed recurrence of disability. 

In a narrative statement dated July 26, 2017, appellant indicated that she had returned to 

work on May 17, 2013 and realized that her return might not have been the best decision for her 

because she was not ready to physically handle the demands of her job. After returning to work, 

she indicated that she had continued to experience significant pain in her shoulders and neck that 

was not improving and was significantly impacting her ability to carry out her activities of daily 

living, including performance of her job duties.

Appellant also submitted an addendum report dated January 16, 2018 from Dr. Feeman, 

wherein he noted that the jerking motion she had to make with her arms to swerve, along with 

breaking created enough force on the rotator cuff tendon when combined with a jerking motion to 

cause it to tear completely. Dr. Feeman further indicated that the mechanics of the accident caused 

the tendons in her shoulders to swell causing impingement syndrome and radiculopathy. 

Therefore, it was his medical opinion that the resulting impact of appellant having to hit the brake, 

swerve, and jerk the steering wheel while driving on the highway to avoid debris caused additional 

cervical and bilateral shoulder conditions. Dr. Feeman was also noted his agreement with

Dr. Williams that appellant was totally disabled from work as of March 6 to 27, 2014 pending 

results of her diagnostic studies and that she was unable to perform any overhead activities as of 

March 27, 2014 and continuing due to her ongoing functional deficits from her work-related neck 

and shoulder conditions. 

On January 11, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration of the May 10, 2017 expansion 

decision and reiterated the factual history of her claim in a narrative statement dated July 26, 2017. 

She contended that her psychological symptoms from her employment injury had become so 

severe and debilitating that she finally sought help for these issues in September 2013, and she was 

forced to take time off from work using the Family and Medical Leave Act after that time. 

In support of her reconsideration request, appellant submitted an October 10, 2017 report

by Dr. Hill who continued to diagnose major depressive disorder, panic disorder, and PTSD and 

opined that appellant’s conditions started shortly following the employment injury on 

April 9, 2013. Dr. Hill opined that her emotional conditions were caused as a direct result of the 

employment injury, both from the trauma of the accident itself as well as the chronic pain she 

developed from the injuries she suffered to her shoulders and neck during the accident. He noted 

that PTSD was triggered by experiencing or witnessing a traumatic event that involved actual or 

threatened death or serious injury, such as a motor vehicle accident. Dr. Hill opined that 

appellant’s PTSD triggered depression and anxiety symptoms such as panic attacks and led to the 

development of her major depressive disorder and panic disorder. He further opined that her

chronic pain limited her mood, her activities, and her lifestyle, which contributed to her 

development of depression and exacerbated her PTSD and panic disorder. Dr. Hill concluded that 

appellant was totally disabled for work due to her emotional conditions. 
7

Appellant also submitted an October 10, 2017 report from Dr. Ahmed who reiterated his 

diagnoses and opinions regarding her emotional conditions. 

On March 23, 2018 appellant, through her then-counsel, requested reconsideration of the 

May 11, 2018 decision regarding the denial of her recurrence claim. The request was resubmitted 

on April 2, 2018.

By decision dated July 26, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its May 11, 2017 decision

regarding the denial of her recurrence claim.

By decision dated September 30, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its May 10, 2017 

decision regarding the denial of appellant’s request to expand the acceptance of her claim to 

include additional conditions. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

When an employee claims that a condition not accepted or approved by OWCP was due to 

an employment injury, he or she bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition is causally 

related to the employment injury.6 

The claimant bears the burden of proof to establish a claim for a consequential injury.7 As 

part of this burden, he or she must present rationalized medical opinion evidence, based on a 

complete factual and medical background, establishing causal relationship. The opinion must be 

one of reasonable medical certainty and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the 

nature of the relationship of the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors or 

employment injury.8

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence required to establish causal 

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.9 Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition 

manifests itself during a period of employment, nor the belief that the disease or condition was 

caused or aggravated by employment factors or incidents, is sufficient to establish causal 

relationship.10

In discussing the range of compensable consequences, once the primary injury is causally 

connected with the employment, the question is whether compensability should be extended to a 

subsequent injury or aggravation related in some way to the primary injury. The basic rule is that, 

 

6 V.S., Docket No. 19-1370 (issued November 30, 2020); M.M., Docket No. 19-0951 (issued October 24, 2019); 

Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004).

7

I.S., Docket No. 19-1461 (issued April 30, 2020).

8 K.W., Docket No. 18-0991 (issued December 11, 2018).

9 G.R., Docket No. 18-0735 (issued November 15, 2018).

10 Id.
8

a subsequent injury, whether an aggravation of the original injury or a new and distinct injury, is 

compensable if it is the direct and natural result of a compensable primary injury.11

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a series of medical reports from Dr. Hill who 

opined that appellant’s diagnosed emotional conditions were a direct cause of the chronic pain she 

had developed and suffered from following the April 9, 2013 employment injury because it had 

limited her mood, her activities, and her lifestyle. Dr. Hill explained how the accepted conditions 

were sufficient to have resulted in the development of the emotional conditions he had diagnosed. 

Further, he diagnosed PTSD and explained how appellant’s injury during a motor vehicle incident 

triggered depression and anxiety symptoms such as panic attacks and led to the development of 

her major depressive and panic disorders due to her fear and the trauma associated with the motor 

vehicle incident which was sufficient to have caused physical injury. 

The Board finds that the opinion of Dr. Hill is sufficient to require further development of 

the medical evidence on the issue of whether the acceptance of the claim should be expanded to 

include emotional conditions as causally related to the accepted April 9, 2013 employment injury. 

Dr. Hill is a psychiatrist qualified in the appropriate field of medicine to render rationalized 

opinions on the issue of causal relationship and he provided a comprehensive understanding of the 

medical record and case history. He provided consistent diagnoses of mental health conditions 

and directly opined that they were causally related to the accepted injury explaining how each 

condition had developed as a result of the employment injury. Accordingly, the medical opinion 

of Dr. Hill is sufficient to require further development of appellant’s claim.12

It is well established that proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and, while 

appellant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares 

responsibility in the development of the evidence.13 OWCP has an obligation to see that justice is 

done.14

On remand OWCP shall follow its procedures for the development of emotional condition 

claims and refer appellant to an appropriate specialist, along with the case record and a statement 

of accepted facts, for an examination and a rationalized medical opinion as to whether the 

acceptance of her claim should be expanded to include emotional conditions as causally related to 

 

11 K.S., Docket No. 17-1583 (issued May 10, 2018).

12 D.S., Docket No. 17-1359 (issued May 3, 2019); X.V., Docket No. 18-1360 (issued April 12, 2019); C.M., Docket 

No. 17-1977 (issued January 29, 2019); William J. Cantrell, 34 ECAB 1223 (1983).

13 See id. See also A.P., Docket No. 17-0813 (issued January 3, 2018); Jimmy A. Hammons, 51 ECAB 219, 

223 (1999).

14 See B.C., Docket No. 15-1853 (issued January 19, 2016); E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 2010); 

John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).
9

her accepted employment injury.15 If the second opinion physician disagrees with the opinion 

provided by Dr. Hill, he or she must provide a fully-rationalized explanation explaining why the 

accepted employment injury and the previously accepted conditions are insufficient to have caused 

or aggravated emotional conditions. Following this and other such further development as deemed 

necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision regarding expansion of the acceptance of the 

claim to include additional conditions.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

A recurrence of disability means an inability to work after an employee has returned to 

work, caused by a spontaneous change in a medical condition which resulted from a previous 

compensable injury or illness and without an intervening injury or new exposure in the work 

environment.16 This term also means an inability to work because a light-duty assignment made 

specifically to accommodate an employee’s physical limitations, and which is necessary because 

of a work-related injury or illness, is withdrawn or altered so that the assignment exceeds the 

employee’s physical limitations.17

OWCP’s procedures provide that a recurrence of disability includes a work stoppage 

caused by a spontaneous material change in the medical condition demonstrated by objective 

findings. That change must result from a previous injury or occupational illness rather than an 

intervening injury or new exposure to factors causing the original illness. It does not include a 

condition that results from a new injury, even if it involves the same part of the body previously 

injured.18

An employee who claims a recurrence of disability due to an accepted employment-related 

injury has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of the substantial, reliable, and probative 

evidence that the disability for which he or she claims compensation is causally related to the 

accepted injury. This burden of proof requires that a claimant furnish medical evidence from a 

physician who, on the basis of a complete and accurate factual and medical history, concludes that, 

for each period of disability claimed, the disabling condition is causally related to the employment 

injury, and supports that conclusion with medical reasoning.19 Where no such rationale is present, 

the medical evidence is of diminished probative value.20

 

15 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013); 

C.C., Docket No. 19-1631 (issued February 12, 2020).

16 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); see J.D., Docket No. 18-1533 (issued February 27, 2019).

17 See id. A recurrence does not occur when such withdrawal occurs for reasons of misconduct, nonperformance 

of job duties, or a reduction-in-force. Id.

18 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.2b (June 2013); L.B., Docket 

No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018).

19 J.D., Docket No. 18-0616 (issued January 11, 2019); see C.C., Docket No. 18-0719 (issued November 9, 2018).

20 H.T., Docket No. 17-0209 (issued February 8, 2018).
10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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

In support of her claim, appellant submitted an addendum report dated January 16, 2018 

from Dr. Feeman who noted that the jerking motion she had to make with her arms to swerve, 

along with breaking created enough force on the rotator cuff tendon when combined with a jerking 

motion to cause it to tear completely. Dr. Feeman further indicated that the mechanics of the 

accident caused the tendons in her shoulders to swell causing impingement syndrome and 

radiculopathy. Therefore, it was his medical opinion that the resulting impact of appellant having 

to hit the brake, swerve, and jerk the steering wheel while driving on the highway to avoid debris 

caused additional cervical and bilateral shoulder conditions. Dr. Feeman was also in agreement 

with Dr. Williams that appellant was totally disabled from work as of March 6 to 27, 2014 pending 

results of her diagnostic studies and that she was unable to perform any overhead activities as of 

March 27, 2014 and continuing due to her ongoing functional deficits from her work-related neck 

and shoulder conditions.

It is well established that, proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and, while 

appellant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares 

responsibility in the development of the evidence.21 While Dr. Feeman’s reports do not contain 

sufficient rationale to discharge appellant’s burden of proof by the weight of the reliable, 

substantial, and probative evidence that her neck and bilateral shoulder condition were caused or 

aggravated by the accepted employment factors, these reports raise an inference of causal 

relationship sufficient to require further development of the case record by OWCP.22

The Board, therefore, finds that the case must be remanded for further development of the 

medical evidence. On remand OWCP shall prepare a statement of accepted facts and refer 

appellant, together with the case record, to a specialist in the appropriate field of medicine for a 

reasoned opinion as to whether her accepted employment factors either caused or aggravated her 

neck and bilateral shoulder conditions and whether those conditions caused her to be disabled from 

work commencing March 6, 2014.

23

 If the physician opines that the diagnosed condition is not 

causally related to the accepted employment factors, he or she must explain with rationale how or 

why their opinion differs from that of Dr. Feeman. Following this and other such further 

development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision with regard to expansion of 

emotional conditions. The Board further finds that the case is not in posture for decision with 

 

21 J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020). See also A.P., Docket No. 17-0813 (issued January 3, 

2018); Jimmy A. Hammons, 51 ECAB 219, 223 (1999).

22 See T.K., Docket No. 20-0150 (issued July 9, 2020); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); Horace Langhorne,

29 ECAB 820 (1978).

23 Supra note 15 at Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013). See R.D., Docket No. 18-1551 (issued March 1, 2019).
11

regard to the claim of recurrence of disability and expansion to include neck and bilateral should 

conditions. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 30 and July 26, 2019 decisions of the 

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

proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: February 5, 2021

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