S.S. and U.S. Postal Service, Post Office, Baker, LA (Board decision, February 14, 2017)

ECAB remand decision. The Board set aside the OWCP decision and remanded the case. 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).

Plain-English summary

A postal employee claimed an injury during a January 2013 mail tray incident. After an earlier remand, OWCP accepted the supervisor’s account but still found that no work incident was established. The Board held that OWCP had to recognize the incident described by the supervisor and then assess the medical evidence. It set aside the September 2, 2016 decision and remanded for those findings.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 20 C.F.R. § 10.126.
• Outcome: September 2, 2016 denial set aside and remanded.
• Key point: Accepting a witness account established an incident that OWCP had to evaluate.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
S.S., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 17-0057
) Issued: February 14, 2017
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
)
Baker, LA, 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
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

On October 17, 2016 appellant filed an appeal of a September 2, 2016 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The appeal was docketed as No. 17-0057.

On a prior appeal, the Board remanded the case to OWCP.1 The Board noted that “the evidence of record clearly indicated that an employment incident occurred on January 15, 2013.” The question was the specific details of the incident. Appellant had reported that she had picked up a tray of mail, began dropping it and both she and the mail fell to the ground. In later statements she alleged that she did not fall, but stumbled backward. Appellant’s supervisor was a witness to the incident and reported that appellant did not pick up a tray of mail, but it was handed to appellant and the supervisor never let go of the tray. The supervisor indicated that the tray slowly went to the ground and appellant then backed away.

The case was remanded to OWCP to properly make findings the specific details of the January 15, 2013 employment incident. Then the medical evidence of record could properly be reviewed to determine if appellant had established an injury causally related to the employment injury.

The September 2, 2016 OWCP decision fails to make the necessary findings as directed by the Board. OWCP finds that the supervisor’s statement is more credible, but then OWCP

1
Docket No. 15-1781 (issued December 21, 2015). holds that an incident is not established, and there is no review of the medical evidence. The proper analysis, as the Board explained, would be to accept that a January 15, 2013 incident had occurred as described in the witness statement, and then review the medical evidence. A finding that no incident is established would be proper when there are such inconsistencies in the evidence that it is not clear what occurred at work.2 If it is not clear what happened, there is no way to assess whether a medical report had an accurate history of injury.3 In this case the only question was precisely how appellant had handled the tray of mail. By finding that the supervisor’s description of the incident was more credible, OWCP has found that a January 15, 2013 incident occurred as described by the supervisor.

It is a well-established principle that OWCP must make proper findings of fact and a statement of reasons in its final decisions.4 The case will be remanded to OWCP to properly make a finding that a January 15, 2013 incident occurred, and review the medical evidence to determine if an injury causally related to the January 15, 2013 employment incident was established. After such further development as is deemed necessary, it should issue an appropriate decision.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs dated September 2, 2016 is set aside and the case remanded for further action consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: February 14, 2017
Washington, DC

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

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

2
See, e.g., D.L., Docket No. 13-0974 (issued August 14, 2013); Clarice J. Sanchez, Docket No. 05-0379 (issued September 13, 2005).
3
A medical report must have an accurate history of the employment incident. See D.T., Docket No. 14-2024 (issued June 24, 2015).
4
See Arietta K. Cooper, 5 ECAB 11 (1952); 20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

2