United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Detroit, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1410

Issued: May 10, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Douglas Marshall, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On August 2, 2021 appellant, through a representative, filed a timely appeal from a July 7, 

2021 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).2 The Clerk of 

the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 21-1410. 

On December 17, 2020 appellant, then a 53-year-old postal letter carrier, filed a notice of 

recurrence (Form CA-2a) alleging that on November 19, 2020 the repetitive trauma of standing 

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 Appellant submitted a timely request for oral argument before the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). Pursuant to the 

Board’s Rules of Procedure, oral argument may be held in the discretion of the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(a). Appellant 

did not state a specific reason for requesting oral argument. The Board, in exercising its discretion, denies appellant’s 

request for oral argument because the issues on appeal can adequately be addressed in a decision based on a review 

of the case record. Oral argument in this appeal would further delay issuance of a Board decision and not serve a 

useful purpose. As such, the oral argument request is denied and this order is based on the case record as submitted 

to the Board.
2

and walking while in the performance of duty caused her left knee to swell and become stiff. 

Appellant did not stop work.

The notice of recurrence was originally filed under OWCP File No. xxxxxx487, an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) accepted for aggravation of left patellar tendinitis; and 

aggravation of pain in joint, left lower leg. The recurrence claim was converted by OWCP to a

new occupational disease claim, assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx656, which is the claim presently 

before the Board. Appellant’s claims have not been administratively combined by OWCP.

By decision dated April 8, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim

under OWCP File No. xxxxxx656, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to 

establish causal relationship between the diagnosed medical condition and the accepted 

employment factors.

On April 22, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s April 8, 2021 decision.

By decision dated July 7, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its April 8, 2021 decision. 

It referenced appellant’s prior claim in OWCP File No. xxxxxx487 and summarized medical 

evidence found in that case record. 

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 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 has a previously accepted claim for aggravation of patellar tendinitis, left 

and aggravation of pain in joint, lower leg, left under OWCP File No. xxxxxx487. The present 

claim, OWCP File No. xxxxxx656, also pertains to the left knee. Appellant’s claims, however, 

have not been administratively combined by OWCP. For a full and fair adjudication, the case 

must be returned to OWCP to administratively combine the current case record with OWCP File 

No. xxxxxx487. Following this and such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall 

issue a de novo decision. Accordingly,

3

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

(February2000).

4

Id.; R.H., Docket No. 21-0575 (issued December 21, 2021); 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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 7, 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 10, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board