United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.Y., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BETTENDORF POST 

OFFICE, Bettendorf, IA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0403

Issued: July 26, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On January 27, 2023 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a December 7, 

2022 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of 

the Appellate Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 23-0403.

On February 26, 2022 appellant, then a 33-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that her right knee conditionswere due to factors of her federal 

employment, which included eight years of casing mail, lifting, twisting, climbing hills, steps and 

“carrying weight.” She explained that her right knee started to swell and that her condition

worsened after she fell on a pipe that was sticking out of the ground. Appellant noted that she first 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

became aware of her condition on March 15, 2020 and realized its relation to factors of her federal 

employment on April 1, 2020. She stopped work on July 8, 2021.2

By decision dated April 4, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. It 

found that the medical evidence did not establish that her knee conditions were causally related to 

the accepted work events. OWCP noted appellant’s allegations regarding eight years of strain 

caused by casing mail, lifting, twisting, climbing hills, climbing steps, carrying weight, and that it 

was more difficult to perform her job after she fell on a pipe and her condition worsened. 

On April 11, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration of the April 4, 2022 decision and 

submitted additional evidence. By decision dated April 13, 2022, OWCP denied modification of 

its April 4, 2022 decision. It found that the medical evidence did not contain a rationalized medical 

opinion that was based on a complete and accurate history with supporting o bjective findings 

which explained how appellant’s accepted work factors caused the diagnosed right knee 

conditions, and which addressed appellant’s claimed May 15, 2020 injury under OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx565.

On April 18, 2022 appellant again requested reconsideration and submitted additional 

medical evidence.

By decision dated May 20, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of her claim as her request neither raised substantive legal questions, nor included new 

and relevant evidence. 

On September 8, 2022 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted 

additional evidence. 

By decision dated December 7, 2022, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. It 

again noted that appellant’s treating physician did not address her claimed May 15, 2020 injury

under OWCP File No. xxxxxx565. 

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that this case is not in posture for 

decision. 

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

adjudication of the issues depends on frequent cross-referencing between files.3 For example, if a 

2 OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx487. Under OWCP File No. xxxxx565, appellant had 

previously filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) for a May 15, 2020 alleged injury to her right knee which 

occurred when she slipped and fell onto a waterpipe sticking out of the ground, while in the performance of duty. By 

decision dated August18, 2020, OWCP denied that claim, finding that appellant had not established that the incident 

occurred as alleged.

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

(February 2000).
3

new injury case is reported for an employee who previously filed an injury claim for a similar 

condition or the same part of the body, doubling is required. 4

Herein, appellant had prior traumatic injury claim for a right knee injury, assigned OWCP 

File No. xxxxx565. She subsequently filed an occupational disease claim for the same region of 

the body, assigned OWCP File No. xxxxx487. Therefore, for a full and fair adjudication, the case 

must be returned to OWCP to administratively combine the current case record, OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx487, with OWCP File No. xxxxxx565. Following this and any further development 

deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 7, 2022 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: July 26, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4

Id.; K.W., Docket No. 22-0951 (issued January 26, 2023); A.D.,Docket No. 22-0147 (issued July 1, 2022); S.G.,

Docket No. 21-0396 (issued September 27, 2021); R.L., Docket No. 20-0901 (issued July 27, 2021); M.E., Docket 

No. 21-0094 (issued May 27, 2021); L.M., Docket No. 19-1490 (issued January 29, 2020);L.H.,Docket No. 18-1777 

(issued July 2, 2019).