United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

St. Louis, MO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1026

Issued: January 25, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On June 29, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 17, 2022 merit decision and 

a June 23, 2022 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-1026.

On October 9, 2010 appellant, then a 34-year-old carrier technician, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date he sprained his right knee when walking up steps and 

felt his knee pop while in the performance of duty. He did not stop work.

No further documentation was received after November 2010 until February 2022.

On February 8, 2022 appellant filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging 

that he encountered the same symptoms to date due to factors of his federal employment. He noted

that he first became aware of his condition and its relation to his federal employment on 

October 9, 2010. In an attached statement, appellant requested that his claim under OWCP File 

No. xxxxxx342 be reopened because he still experienced residual pain from the accepted 

October 9, 2010 employment incident. He also indicated that the employing establishment had 

informed him that his claim was accepted, but he never received notification from the Department 

of Labor (DOL) that his injury was accepted.
2

Appellant submitted a progress note dated February 3, 2022 and an undated letter by

Dr. Shivam Desi, an orthopedic surgeon, regarding the treatment he sought for his bilateral knee 

pain.

By decision dated February 11, 2022, OWCP accepted appellant’s October 9, 2010 claim 

for right knee sprain. It noted that the case was closed, effective February 11, 2022, because the 

accepted condition should have resolved within 6 to 8 weeks of the injury and there was no medical 

evidence received for over 10 years from the date of injury.

By decision dated March 17, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence claim for medical 

treatment finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a worsening of the 

accepted work-related conditions requiring further medical treatment.

On March 17, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration. He contended that he was not 

seeking a recurrence of his claim because he had the same symptoms that he had experienced since 

the October 9, 2010 injury. Appellant requested reconsideration based on the fact that his 

condition was not initially accepted.

By decision dated June 23, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §8128(a). 

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

decision.

OWCP’s implementing regulations define a recurrence of medical condition as a need for 

further medical treatment after release from treatment for the accepted condition or injury when 

there is no accompanying work stoppage.1 It further notes that continuous treatment for the 

original condition or injury is not considered a “need for further medical treatment after release 

from treatment,” nor is an examination without treatment.2 

In its March 17, 2022 decision, OWCP indicated that appellant filed a Form CA-2a, notice 

of recurrence, for additional medical care and subsequently denied the claim finding that the 

medical evidence of record did not establish additional medical treatment due to a worsening of 

his accepted work conditions. The evidence of record establishes, however, that appellant filed a 

Form CA-2, claim for occupational disease, not a Form CA-2a. Moreover, at the time that 

appellant filed his Form CA-2 on February 8, 2022, OWCP had not yet accepted appellant’s 

October 9, 2010 traumatic injury claim. Accordingly, the Board finds that, given that appellant’s 

initial October 9, 2010 traumatic injury claim was not accepted until February 11, 2022, OWCP 

should not have developed his February 8, 2022 occupational disease claim as a claim for 

recurrence for medical treatment. 

Section 8124(a) of FECA provides that OWCP shall determine and make findings of fact 

and make an award for or against payment of compensation.3 OWCP’s regulations at 20 C.F.R. 

1

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(y). 

2

Id. 

3

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).
3

§ 10.126 further provide that the decision of the Director of OWCP shall contain findings of fact 

and a statement of reasons.4 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.5 In its March 17, 2022 decision, OWCP did not 

address appellant’s February 8, 2022 occupational disease claim nor adequately explain why it 

developed his occupational disease claim as a recurrence claim.6 This lack of explanation would 

prevent appellant from understanding the reason for the disallowance of the claim and the evidence

necessary to overcome the defeat of the claim.7 Accordingly, the case must be remanded for 

OWCP to make findings of fact and provide reasons for its decision regarding appellant’s 

occupational disease claim pursuant to the standards set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.500(a) and 

10.126. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 17 and June 23, 2022 decisions are set 

aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: January 25, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

5 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, part 2 --Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5 (February2013).

6

See M.C., Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 21-1153 (issued February 14, 2022); C.W., Order Remanding 

Case, Docket Nos. 18-1764 and 19-0709 (issued August27, 2020).

7

See P.G., Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 17-1461 (issued February 7, 2019).