United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Fresno, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1014

Issued: November 29, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On June 21, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a June 8, 2022 

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

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-1014.

On October 9, 2018 OWCP accepted appellant’s traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) for 

right trigger thumb, left shoulder bicipital tendinitis, and right forearm calcific tendinitis. On 

October 29, 2019 it expanded the acceptance of the claim to include unspecified rotator cuff tear 

or rupture of right shoulder, not specified as traumatic.

Appellant filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability from work 

commencing February 25, 2021. OWCP adjudicated appellant’s Form CA-7 claims for 

compensation as a claim for a recurrence of disability. 

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

By decision dated June 11, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence claim, finding that 

the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between the 

claimed disability and the accepted employment injury.

On June 22, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. A hearing was held on 

October 6, 2021.

By decision dated December 16, 2021, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

June 11, 2021 decision. 

On January 25, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration of the December 16, 2021 

decision.

On January 26, 2022 appellant, through counsel, appealed the December 16, 2021 decision 

to the Board. The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned that appeal Docket No. 22-0410. 

During the pendency of the appeal in Docket No. 22-0410, on May 11, 2022 appellant

requested reconsideration of the December 16, 2021 decision. On June 8, 2022 OWCP issued a 

merit decision, denying modification of its December 16, 2021 decision.

The Board’s Rules of Procedure, at section 501.2(c)(3), provides:

“The Board and OWCP may not exercise simultaneous jurisdiction over the same 

issue in a case on appeal. Following the docketing of an appeal before the Board, 

OWCP does not retain jurisdiction to render a further decision regarding the issue 

on appeal until after the Board relinquishes jurisdiction.”

2

Similarly, section 10.626 of OWCP’s regulations provides in pertinent part:

“While a case is on appeal to the [the Board], OWCP has no jurisdiction over the 

claim with respect to issues which directly relate to the issue or issues on appeal. 

[It] continues to administer the claim and retains jurisdiction over issues unrelated 

to the issue or issues on appeal and issues which arise after the appeal as a result of 

ongoing administration of the case.”

3

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that on June 8, 2022 OWCP denied 

modification of its December 16, 2021 decision. However, once appellant, through counsel, filed 

the Board appeal on January 26, 2022 of OWCP’s December 16, 2021 merit decision, OWCP had 

2

20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c)(3). See also Order Dismissing Appeal, T.T., Docket No. 20-0864 (issued December 17, 

2020); M.S., Docket Nos. 19-1090 & 20-0408 (issued April20, 2020); J.W., Docket No. 19-1688 (issued March18, 

2020); George Simpson, Docket No. 93-0452 (issued February 18, 1994); Douglas E. Billings, 41 ECAB 880 (1990).

3

20 C.F.R. § 10.626.
3

no jurisdiction to issue its June 8, 2022 decision.4 Consequently, the June 8, 2022 decision is null

and void.5

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8149 and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a), the Board’s 

jurisdiction is limited to the review of final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA). As the June 8, 2022 OWCP decision is null and void, 

there is no final adverse decision over which the Board may properly take jurisdiction. Therefore, 

the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1014 is dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1014 is dismissed.

Issued: November 29, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4 Douglas E. Billings, supra note 2; see also D.F., Docket No. 19-1257 (issued July 14, 2020).

5

Id. See also G.W., Docket No. 19-0260 (issued July 10, 2020); Cathy B. Millin, 51 ECAB 331 (2000).