B.W. and Department of the Navy, Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA (Board decision, May 9, 2012)

ECAB remand decision. The Board set aside OWCP's July 15, 2011 refusal to reconsider B.W.'s claim and remanded for a properly reasoned decision. The underlying schedule award claim remains unresolved in this order. A party may petition the Board for reconsideration within 30 days of issuance unless this order specifies another period, under 20 C.F.R. § 501.7(a). FECA compensation decisions are generally not subject to court review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b).

Plain-English summary

B.W., a Navy medical center secretary, sought reconsideration after OWCP denied an increased schedule award for her accepted hand conditions. OWCP declined the request in a short notice that gave no findings of fact or explanation. The Board held that an OWCP decision must state its factual findings and reasons. It set aside the refusal and returned the case for a properly issued decision on the reconsideration request. The order did not decide whether B.W. was entitled to a larger award.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Required findings and reasons in an OWCP decision under 20 C.F.R. § 10.126.
• Outcome: July 15, 2011 reconsideration refusal set aside; case remanded.
• Key point: A bare refusal to review a reconsideration request did not satisfy OWCP's decision requirements.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
B.W., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 11-2090
)
Issued: May 9, 2012
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL
)
MEDICAL CENTER, Portsmouth, VA, Employer )
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:
RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Judge
COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

On September 23, 2011 appellant filed a timely appeal from the July 15, 2011 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), which denied her January 25, 2011 reconsideration request.1

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision. An OWCP decision shall contain findings of fact and a statement of reasons.2 OWCP’s July 15, 2011 decision contained neither. It stated: “We have declined your request. We have not reviewed the merits of your case.” There was nothing enclosed to explain the basis for the determination.

1
Appellant, a secretary, sustained a traumatic injury on October 9, 2008 when, while she was typing, her right thumb locked up with pain. OWCP accepted her claim for right thumb trigger finger and de Quervain’s disease. Appellant received a schedule award for a 10 percent impairment of her right upper extremity and a 20 percent impairment of her left. On September 23, 2010 OWCP denied an increased schedule award. On January 25, 2011 appellant requested reconsideration. 2 20 C.F.R. § 10.126; see Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.7.b (October 2011): “If the evidence submitted to support an application for reconsideration is not sufficient to require a merit review, OWCP should issue a decision that discusses the evidence submitted, or lack thereof and explicitly state the basis for the finding of insufficiency. The decision should explain that the application for reconsideration is denied on the basis that the evidence submitted in support of the application is not sufficient to warrant review.” The Board, therefore, will set aside OWCP’s July 15, 2011 decision and remand the case for a properly issued final decision on appellant’s January 25, 2011 reconsideration request.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 15, 2011 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case remanded for further action.

Issued: May 9, 2012
Washington, DC

Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

2