United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION FACILITY, Grand Rapids, MI, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0132

Issued: May 20, 2022

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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On November 4, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an 

October 19, 2021 merit decision of the Office of Workers’Compensation Programs (OWCP). The 

Clerk of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 22-0132. 

On March 17, 2021 appellant, then a 52-year-old mail processing clerk, filed an

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she aggravated her right carpal tunnel 

syndrome and experienced right shoulder pain due to factors of her federal employment including 

repetitive lifting, reaching above her head, and grasping. She noted that she first became aware of

her condition and realized its relation to her federal employment on January 16, 2021.

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

OWCP had previously accepted, under OWCP File No. xxxxxx999, that on August 30, 

2011 appellant sustained right wrist sprain and tenosynovitis of the hand and wrist, as well as left 

shoulder affection, due to lifting heavy mail on a constant basis.

In a report dated March 10, 2021, Dr. Rhoda V. Beltran, a Board-certified family 

practitioner, related that appellant previously had undergone carpal tunnel surgery in 1999, and 

had began having problems again on January 16, 2021. She noted that appellant had right 

shoulder, upper arm, wrist, forearm, and right-hand pain. Dr. Beltran noted that appellant was 

required to grasp, sweep, and move her hands frequently, as well as lift large boxes at work. She

indicated that appellant’s right arm pain was an overuse problem.

By decision dated June 15, 2021, OWCP accepted the alleged factors of her federal 

employment. However, it denied appellant’s claim, finding that she had not established a valid 

medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted factors of her federal employment. OWCP 

concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by 

FECA.

In a note dated July 12, 2021, Dr. John Healey, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

diagnosed appellant with superior labrum anterior-to-posterior (SLAP) tear of right shoulder; 

traumatic incomplete tear of right rotator cuff; arthritis of right acromioclavicular joint; and right 

carpal tunnel syndrome. He also provided work restrictions.

On August 3, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s June 15, 2021 

decision. In support of her request, she submitted a medical report dated June 17, 2021 from

Dr. Ronald Ford, a Board-certified plastic surgeon. Dr. Ford noted diagnoses of right hand pain, 

right thumb arthritis, and possible right hand carpal tunnel syndrome. He stated that he believed 

appellant’s arthritis was the result of or exacerbated by her repetitive work.

By decision dated October 19, 2021, OWCP modified its June 15, 2021 decision to find 

that appellant submitted evidence containing a diagnosed medical condition. However, the claim 

remained denied as the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship 

between the diagnosed medical conditions and the accepted factors of her federal employment.

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.2 For example, if a 

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

condition or the same part of the body, doubling is required. 3 Herein, appellant has a previously 

accepted claim for wrist sprain, right and other tenosynovitis of hand and wrist, right under OWCP 

File No. xxxxxx999. The present claim, OWCP File No. xxxxxx 781, also pertains to the right 

2

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

(February2000).

3

Id.; D.C., Docket No. 19-0100 (issued June3, 2019); N.M., Docket No. 18-0833 (issued April18, 2019); K.T., 

Docket No. 17-0432 (issued August17, 2018).
3

hand and wrist. The evidence pertaining to OWCP File No. xxxxxx 999, however, is not part of 

the case record presently before the Board. For a full and fair adjudication, the case must be 

returned to OWCP to administratively combine the current case record with OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx 999. Following this and such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall 

issue a de novo decision. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 19, 2021 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: May 20, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board