United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.N., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, BILLY 

JOHNSON DENTAL CLINIC, Fort Hood, TX, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0339

Issued: May 26, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On January 4, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 10, 2020 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 The Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 21-0339.

On December 15, 2014 appellant, then a 54-year-old dental assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 11, 2014 she broke her left foot when she 

slipped when descending a staircase while in the performance of duty. On December 17, 2014 

appellant underwent a left foot tarsometatarsal joint fusion procedure. OWCP accepted her claim 

for a closed dislocation of the tarsometatarsal of the left foot on April 22, 2015. It paid appellant

wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls from January 25 through April 5, 2015.

Appellant returned to full-time work with no restrictions on April 6, 2015. 

1 The Board finds that OWCP’s November 10, 2020 letter to appellant constitutes a final adverse merit decision on 

appellant’s September 17, 2020 claim for recurrence of a medical condition. The Board’s Rules of Procedureprovides

that the Board has jurisdiction to consider and decide appeals from the final decision of OWCP in any case arising 

under FECA. In considering whether a document constitutes a final decision, it is not the form, but the content and 

the intention of OWCP that is determinative. See A.N., Docket No. 20-1603 (issued June16, 2021).
2

On September 20, 2017 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) of disability 

but did not note a date of work stoppage. In describing how the recurrence occurred, she noted 

that she had received physical therapy for her condition, but she had not recovered. Appellant 

explained that she had not stopped work again, but continued to require medical treatment. On the 

reverse side of the form, appellant’s supervisor indicated that following her original injury, 

appellant received medical accommodation for three months on light duty.

By decisions dated December 4, 2017, April 23, 2018, and October 5, 2018, OWCP denied 

appellant’s September 20, 2017 recurrence of disability claim. 

On September 17, 2020 appellant filed a Form CA-2a claim for a recurrence of the need 

for medical treatment. She noted the date of the original injury, the date of recurrence, and the 

date she stopped work as December 11, 2014. 

In an October 22, 2020 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit 

additional evidence, including an attending physician’s opinion supported by a medical 

explanation as to how her claimed recurrence of a medical condition was due to her original 

accepted injury/illness, without intervening cause.

By decision dated November 10, 2020, OWCP summarily denied appellant’s claim for a 

recurrence of the need for medical treatment. It noted that it had received a Form CA-2a claim for 

a recurrence of the need for medical treatment commencing the same date as her initial injury, and 

that this appeared to be a duplicate of her September 20, 2017 recurrence of disability claim. 

OWCP further noted that the claim was initially denied by decisions dated December 4, 2017 and 

April 23 and October 5, 2018. It further noted that a recurrence cannot be claimed on the same 

date appellant was injured. 

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

decision.

OWCP summarily denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence of the need for medical 

treatment without complying with the review requirement of FECA and its implementing 

regulations.2 Section 8124(a) of FECA (5 U.S.C. § 8124(a)) provides that OWCP shall determine 

and make findings of fact and make an award for or against payment of compensation. OWCP’s

regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 provide that the decision of the Director of OWCP shall contain 

findings of fact and a statement of reasons. As well, its procedures provide that the reasoning 

behind OWCP’s decision should be clear enough for the reader to understand the precise defect of 

the claim and the kind of evidence, which would overcome it.3

In its November 10, 2020 decision, 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 

2

See Order Remanding Case, W.D., Docket No. 20-0859 (issued November 20, 2020); Order Remanding Case, 

C.G., Docket No. 20-0051 (issued June 29, 2020); Order Remanding Case, T.P., Docket No. 19-1533 (issued April30, 

2020); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b).

3 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Pa rt 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5 (February 2013).
3

understand the basis for the decision.4 Rather, it summarily denied appellant’s claim for a 

recurrence of the need for medical treatment, noting that appellant’s recurrence claim appeared to 

be a duplicate of her September 20, 2017 recurrence of disability claim. The claims, however, are 

not duplicates as the latter is a claim for a recurrence of the need for medical treatment, not a claim 

for a recurrence of disability. OWCP’s failure to provide factual findings and explain the basis for 

its conclusion that appellant did not establish a recurrence of the need for medical treatment

precludes the Board’s review of the decision.5

The Board will, therefore, set aside OWCP’s November 10, 2020 decision and remand the 

case for a de novo decision on appellant’s claim for a recurrence of the need for medical treatment. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 10, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

pursuant to this order of the Board.

Issued: May 26, 2022

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

20 C.F.R. § 10.126; D.W., Docket No. 18-0483 (issued March 7, 2019).

5

See Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 19-1533 (issued April30, 2020).