United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ROSWELL POST 

OFFICE, Roswell, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0612

Issued: December 4, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Emma Cull, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On March 22, 2023 appellant, through his representative, filed a timely appeal from a

January 11, 2023 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

The Clerk of the Appellate Boards has assigned the appeal Docket No. 23-0612.

On August 26, 2021 appellant, then a 34-year-old clerk typist, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed knee, shoulder, and foot conditions due to factors 

of his federal employment, including standing for long periods of time, repetitively transitioning 

from a seated position to a standing position, and walking up steep driveways. He noted that he 

first became aware of his conditions on November 20, 2016, and first realized their relation to his 

federal employment on March 25, 2020. Appellant did not immediately stop work.

Appellant submitted medical reports in support of his claim, including August 26 and 

October 25, 2021 reports wherein Dr. Jinan Ghali, a Board-certified internist, opined that appellant

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

sustained multiple back, lower extremity, and upper extremity conditions as a direct result of her 

federal work duties. 

In an October 24, 2021 statement, appellant indicated that his job required him to engage 

in repetitive lifting/handling of mail, sorting/scanning mail, and extensive walking and standing.

By decision dated December 7, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim, finding that the medical evidence submitted was insufficient to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

Appellant submitted reports of his treatment for bilateral knee and lumbar conditions from 

May 4 through December 14, 2022 by chiropractors, Dr. S. Ken Smith and Dr. Latoya Ridley.

On January 6, 2023 appellant requested reconsideration of the December 7, 2021 decision.

On January 6, 2023 OWCP received a June 8, 2022 report wherein Dr. Victor Osisanya, a 

Board-certified physiatrist, reported physical examination findings and diagnosed right and left 

shoulder rotator cuff strains; strain of the muscle, fascia and tendon of the lower back; lumbar 

radiculopathy, sprain of the right and left knees;other tear of the lateral meniscus of the right knee;

strain of the left quadriceps muscle, fascia, and tendon; posterior tibial tendinitis of the right and 

left legs; and consequential bilateral flatfoot. In the comments/conclusion portion of the report, 

he opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that appellant’s injuries were a direct result 

of the repetitive nature of his job including prolonged standing and walking. Dr. Osisanya noted 

that these activities resulted in inflammation in the muscle, tendons, ligaments and soft tissues 

leading to a quadriceps partial-thickness tendon tear in the left knee, right knee lateral meniscal 

tear, bilateral posterior tibial tendinitis, and flatfoot. He asserted that the acromioclavicular (AC) 

joints, rotator muscles, ligaments and biceps tendon were stretched beyond normal muscle length 

as a result of repetitive abduction/adduction, overhead reaching, and lifting packages at work, 

thereby causing a strain of the rotator cuff muscles in both shoulders. Dr. Osisanya indicated that 

the flexion, extension, and torsion forces required in walking and standing long hours increased 

loading forces on the lumbar spine, thereby causing an inflammatory reaction in these structures,

which led to lumbar radiculopathy. He opined that appellant’s constant weight bearing at work, 

as well as prolonged walking and standing, contributed to his bilateral knee injuries. Appellant 

also submitted a January 2, 2023 report in which Dr. Osisanya provided language similar to that 

contained in the comments/conclusion portion of his June 8, 2022 report.

OWCP also received x-rays of the knees dated October 25, 2019, x-rays of the feet dated 

March 25, 2021, x-rays of the knees dated March 25, 2021, and magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) scans of the knees dated April 15, 2021.

By decision dated January 11, 2023, OWCP denied appellant’s reconsideration request, 

finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.
3

OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration without complying with the review 

requirements of FECA and its implementing regulations.2 Section 8124(a) of FECA provides that 

OWCP shall determine and make a finding of fact and make an award for or against payment of 

compensation.3 Its 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. 4 As well, OWCP’s procedures 

provide that the reasoning behind its evaluation 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 support of his request for reconsideration, appellant submitted medical reports from

Dr. Osisanya dated June 8, 2022 and January 2, 2023. In denying his reconsideration request, 

OWCP failed to analyze whether this evidence was sufficient to demonstrate clear evidence of 

error. The January 11, 2023 decision simply noted: 

“In support of your reconsideration request you submitted new medical evidence 

from Dr. Victor Osinsaya as well [sic] medical and factual evidence. You did not 

submit any reason to justify your delay in exercising your appeal rights nor to show 

that our Office erred when it issued the 12/07/2021 denial. Thus, your request is 

untimely and there is no evidence of error on the part of our Office.” 

Appellant also submitted reports of his treatment for bilateral knee and lumbar conditions 

from May 4 through December 14, 2022 by attending chiropractors, including Dr. Smith and

Dr. Ridley. He resubmitted x-rays of the knees dated October 25, 2019, x-rays of the feet dated 

March 25, 2021, x-rays of the knees dated March 25, 2021, and MRI scans of the knees dated 

April 15, 2021. However, OWCP also failed to evaluate this evidence in accordance with the 

review requirements of FECA and its implementing regulations.

The Board finds that OWCP failed to properly explain the findings with respect to the issue 

presented so that appellant could understand the basis for the decision, i.e., whether he had 

demonstrated clear evidence that OWCP’s last merit decision, dated December 7, 2021, was 

incorrect.6 The Board will, therefore, set aside OWCP’s January 11, 2023 decision and remand 

the case for findings of fact and a statement of reasons, to be followed by an appropriate decision 

regarding his reconsideration request.7 Accordingly,

2 D.R., Docket No. 21-1229 (issued July 6, 2022); M.D., Docket No. 20-0868 (issued April28, 2021); T.P., Docket 

No. 19-1533 (issued April 30, 2020); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.607.

3

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

5 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5 (February 2013).

6 OWCP’s regulations and procedures provide that OWCP will reopen a claimant’s case for merit review, 

notwithstanding the one-year filing limitation set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a), if the claimant’s request demonstrates 

clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP. Supra note 5 at Chapter 2.1602.5a (September 2020).

7

See Order Remanding Case, D.R., supra note 2; T.P., supra note 2; see also id. at § 10.607.
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 11, 2023 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: December 4, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board