United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, RIVERDALE POST 

OFFICE, Riverdale, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1243

Issued: May 17, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On August 24, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an August 18, 

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

the Appellate Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 22-1243.

On July 13, 2020 appellant, then a 26-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on June 25, 2020 he sustained a stress fracture of his left foot when 

walking his delivery route while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on June 25, 2020.

OWCP assigned the claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx675. Appellant noted that he sustained a prior 

left foot fracture on July 5, 2019 when he fell down a flight of stairs while delivering mail.2 

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 The record reflects that appellant filed a previous Form CA-1 for a July 5, 2019left foot sprain later diagnosed as 

a fifth metatarsal fracture under OWCP File No. xxxxxx910. 
2

By decision dated August 19, 2021, OWCP accepted the claim for sequela of unspecified 

sprain of the left foot, and aggravation of a nondisplaced fracture of the left fifth metatarsal bone, 

subsequent encounter, for fracture with routine healing. 

On November 3, 2021 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for 

intermittent disability from work for the period February 27 through March 5, 2021. In an 

accompanying time analysis form (Form CA-7a) dated November 8, 2021, the employing 

establishment noted that appellant used 2.25 hours of leave without pay (LWOP) on February 27, 

2021, 8 hours of LWOP on March 2, 2021, and 1.3 hours of LWOP on March 5, 2021.

In a development letter dated February 3, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim for intermittent disability. It advised him of the type of medical evidence 

required and afforded him 30 days to respond. Appellant did not submit additional evidence.

By decision dated March 8, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for intermittent 

disability from work for the period February 27 through March 5, 2021. It noted that he had not 

submitted medical evidence establishing that the accepted injury disabled him from work on the 

dates claimed. 

On March 21, 2022 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

At the hearing, held on June 16, 2022, appellant asserted that on multiple occasions in late 

February and early March 2021, a manager sent him home because his prescribed walking boot 

created a safety hazard. 

By decision dated August 18, 2022, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

March 8, 2022 decision.

The Board has duly considered the 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 of the same part of the body, doubling is required. 4 Herein, appellant has a previous 

traumatic injury claim for a left foot sprain and left fifth metatarsal fracture under OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx910. The present claim, OWCP File No. xxxxxx675, also pertains to a left foot sprain and 

aggravation of the left fifth metatarsal fracture accepted under OWCP File No. xxxxxx910. 

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 

3

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

(February 2000).

4

Id.; Order Remanding Case, M.D., Docket No. 22-0559 (issued October 26, 2022); A.J., Docket No. 21-1410 

(issued May 10, 2022); R.H., Docket No. 21-0575 (issued December 21, 2021); D.C., Docket No. 19-0100 (issued 

June 3, 2019); N.M., Docket No. 18-0833 (issued April18, 2019); K.T., Docket No. 17-0432 (issued August 17, 2018).
3

record with OWCP File No. xxxxxx910. Following this, and such other further development as 

OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 18, 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: May 17, 2023

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board