L.M. and U.S. Postal Service, Post Office, Lakewood, NJ (Board decision, September 30, 2009)

ECAB final decision (erratum). This erratum changes only the date stated for the Board’s earlier remand decision; it does not decide L.M.’s impairment claim. It says the earlier decision should have read September 9, 2009, but the currently linked decision PDF prints September 30, 2009. A party may petition the Board for reconsideration within 30 days of issuance unless the Board specifies another period, under 20 C.F.R. § 501.7(a); these official PDFs do not establish which date starts that period.

Plain-English summary

The Board issued this short erratum in L.M.’s schedule award case. It states that an earlier decision’s printed issue date of August 9, 2009 should have been September 9, 2009. The decision PDF currently linked in the official index instead prints September 30, 2009. The erratum does not change the Board’s remand for a clearer medical impairment opinion, and the conflicting releases leave the applicable issue date unclear.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Clerical correction to the Board’s prior decision; reconsideration period under 20 C.F.R. § 501.7(a).
• Outcome: Printed issue date corrected in the erratum; impairment claim remains on remand.
• Key point: The erratum and the currently linked decision PDF display different dates, so the issue date cannot be resolved from them alone.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
L.M., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 09-421
) Issued: September 30, 2009
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
)
Lakewood, NJ, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ERRATUM

Before:
DAVID S. GERSON, Judge
MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge
JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

The Board issued a decision and order in the above-entitled case. The date of issuance read “August 9, 2009.” The Board notes, however, that the date of issuance should have read “September 9, 2009.”

Issued: September 30, 2009
Washington, DC

David S. Gerson, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board