United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, GILBERT VAL VISTA 

STATION, Gilbert, AZ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0688

Issued: September 13, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Michael John Watson, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On April 17, 2023 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a December 6, 

2022 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of 

the Appellate Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 23-0688.

On July 14, 2022 appellant, then a 54-year-old rural mail carrier, filed a notice of 

recurrence of disability (Form CA-2a) alleging that on June 20, 2022 she began having constant 

left hand and thumb pain while casing and delivering mail. She indicated the date of her original 

injury was April 4, 2007, and that following her return to work in 2007 she was able to perform 

her usual duties without restrictions.2 In an August 1, 2022 letter, OWCP noted receipt of her 

July 14, 2022 Form CA-2a. It advised appellant that it appeared that she was claiming a new 

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 yea r 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 has a prior occupational disease claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx944 which was accepted for other 

tenosynovitis of hand and wrist, left.
2

occupational disease based on her description of the circumstances. Thus, OWCP converted her 

recurrence claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx944 to a new occupational disease claim, assigned 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx925.

By decision dated October 7, 2022, OWCP denied the present claim, finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed condition in connection with the 

accepted employment factors.

On October 17, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration. 

By decision dated December 6, 2022, OWCP modified its prior decision, finding that 

appellant had established valid medical diagnosis of her bilateral hand conditions based upon a 

July 19, 2022 report from Dr. Michael McGrath, a specialist in orthopedic surgery. However, the 

claim remained denied, because the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal 

relationship between her diagnosed bilateral handconditions and the accepted employment factors.

The Board has duly considered this matter and finds 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, doubling is required.4 Herein, appellant had a prior claim under OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx944 for a left-hand condition. She subsequently filed a recurrence claim on July 14, 2022

which OWCP developed as a new occupational disease claim under the present claim, OWCP File 

No. xxxxxx925. 

For a full and fair adjudication, the case must be remanded for OWCP to administratively 

combine the current case record, OWCP File No. xxxxxx925 with OWCP File No. xxxxx944. On 

remand, OWCP shall review all relevant evidence to determine whether appellant has established 

that her diagnosed bilateral hand conditions are causally related to the accepted factors of her 

federal employment. Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, it 

shall issue a de novo decision. Accordingly,

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

(February 2000).

4

Id. See also Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 22-1293 (issued March 13, 2023); S.G., Docket No. 21-0396 

(issued September 27, 2021); R.L., Docket No. 20-0901 (issued July 27, 2021); M.E., Docket No. 21-0094 (issued 

May 27, 2021); L.M., Docket No. 19-1490 (issued January 29, 2020);L.H., Docket No 18-1777 (issued July 2, 2019).
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 6, 2022 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: September 13, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board