(a) The employer shall complete the agency portion of Form CA-1 (for traumatic injury) or CA-2 (for occupational disease) no more than 10 working days after receipt of notice from the employee. The employer shall also complete the Receipt of Notice and give it to the employee, along with copies of both sides of Form CA-1 or Form CA-2.
(b) The employer must complete and transmit the form to OWCP within 10 working days after receipt of notice from the employee if the injury or disease will likely result in:
(1) A medical charge against OWCP;
(2) Disability for work beyond the day or shift of injury;
(3) The need for more than two appointments for medical examination and/or treatment on separate days, leading to time loss from work;
(4) Future disability;
(5) Permanent impairment; or
(6) Continuation of pay pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8118.
(c) The employer should not wait for submittal of supporting evidence before sending the form to OWCP.
(d) If none of the conditions in paragraph (b) of this section applies, the Form CA-1 or CA-2 shall be retained as a permanent record in the Employee Medical Folder in accordance with the guidelines established by the Office of Personnel Management.
Notes of Decisions
Jones-Booker v. United States, 16 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D. Mass. 1998).
· cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 10.110 . To. apply for compensation, a claimant must file a Notice of Occupational Disease and Claim for Compensation (“Form CA-2”) with his superior or any official of the employing agency.”
Miller v. Pool & Canfield, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 120 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).
“Citing 20 C.F.R. § 10.110 , they correctly point out that federal law requires a workers’ compensation claimant to submit “rationalized medical opinion evidence” linking “the claimed condition and the Federal employment.”
Wacks v. Reich, 950 F. Supp. 454 (D. Conn. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff claims that the OWCP violated 20 C.F.R. § 10.110 (c) and 20 C.F.R. *460 § 10.”
Soeken v. Herman, 35 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 1999).
“20 C.F.R. § 10.110 . To satisfy this evidentiary hurdle, the claimant must “submit rationalized medical opinion evidence” from an individual defined as a “physician” pursuant to the Act.”
Avedis v. Herman, 25 F. Supp. 2d 256 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
“” 20 C.F.R. § 10.110 . In evaluating medical evidence during the administration of a claim, § 8123(a) of the FECA provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f there is a disagreement between the physician making the examination for the United States and the physician of the employee,…”
Barry Ahuruonye v. Dep't of the Interior (MSPB 2016).
“¶3 After OSC determined to close its inquiry into the appellant’s allegations, IAF, Tab 3, he filed an IRA appeal with the Board wherein he alleged that his supervisor’s failure to complete her portion of the CA‑2 was a violation of 20 C.F.R. § 10.110 (a) and (b), which requires…”
Beckner v. United States Dep't of Labor, 797 F. Supp. 850 (D. Colo. 1992).
“20 C.F.R. § 10.110 (a) (1991). . For example, counsel cited only the federal mandamus statute in the complaint and provided no authority to support the motion for TRO and injunctive relief.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.