T.J. and U.S. Postal Service, Post Office, Oakland, CA (Board decision, February 3, 2015)

ECAB final decision. The Board set aside OWCP’s May 30, 2014 decision and remanded for review of medical reports received before that decision. Under 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d), this decision becomes final 30 days after issuance. A party may petition the Board for reconsideration within 30 days unless this decision 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

T.J. appealed OWCP’s refusal to accept a condition as related to postal work. He had submitted several physician reports addressing causation before OWCP decided his reconsideration request. The Board found that OWCP had reviewed two reports but overlooked three others received before its decision. It set the decision aside and sent the case back for review of all relevant evidence and a new decision, without ruling on medical causation.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
• Outcome: OWCP decision set aside and remanded for review of submitted medical reports.
• Key point: OWCP had to consider relevant reports received before issuing its decision.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
T.J., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 14-1854
) Issued: February 3, 2015
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
)
Oakland, CA, Employer
)
__________ )

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

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge
COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge
PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge

On August 21, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 30, 2014 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Board docketed the appeal as No. 14-1854. In its May 30, 2014 decision upon reconsideration, OWCP reviewed the merits of appellant’s claim and affirmed its prior decision of December 11, 2013. It stated that the additional medical evidence failed to establish a causal relationship between appellant’s condition and factors of his federal employment.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that, in the case of William A.
1
Couch , it held that, when adjudicating a claim, OWCP is obligated to consider all evidence properly submitted by a claimant and received by OWCP before the final decision is issued. On reconsideration, appellant submitted a narrative statement and medical reports from Dr. Michael E. Hebrard, Board-certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation, dated December 17, 2013; and January 17, February 13, April 10 and 28, 2014. Each of these reports contained causation statements and were received before OWCP’s May 30, 2014 decision. The February 13, 2014 report was first received on March 3, 2014, whereas the April 10, 2014 report was first received on April 23, 2014 and the April 28, 2014 report was first received on May 7, 2014.

1
41 ECAB 548 (1990).
 In its May 30, 2014 decision, OWCP stated, “The evidence reviewed in support of your reconsideration request includes the following new evidence. Along with your reconsideration request we received your written statement in which you give your reasons as to why you disagreed with the previous decision. In the statement you provided a breakdown of medical reports to support your contention on the issue of causal relationship. In addition you provided a new medical report dated January 17, 2014 from Dr. Hebrard and a medical report dated December 17, 2013. [OWCP] reviewed both new medical reports as new evidence from Dr. Hebrard.”

While OWCP is not required to list every piece of evidence submitted to the record, the record is clear that Dr. Hebrard’s February 13, April 10, and 28 reports were not reviewed before the issuance of its May 30, 2014 decision. Whether it receives relevant evidence on the date of the decision or several days before, such evidence must be considered.2 In this case, each of these reports was received well in advance of OWCP’s May 30, 2014 decision. As the Board’s decisions are final as to the subject matter appealed, it is crucial that all evidence relevant to the subject matter of the claim properly submitted to OWCP be reviewed and addressed.3 Accordingly, the case is remanded for proper review of the evidence and, following any necessary further development, the issuance of an appropriate final decision.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs dated May 30, 2014 is set aside and the case remanded for further action consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: February 3, 2015
Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

2
J.I., Docket No. 12-1062 (issued December 12, 2012); William McKennon, 51 ECAB 145 (1999).
3
See Yvette N. Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004).

2