S.R. and U.S. Postal Service, Voorhees Post Office (Board decision, January 15, 2025)

ECAB remand decision. The Board set aside OWCP’s schedule award denial and remanded for combined-file review; any additional award remains unresolved. 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

A postal distribution clerk sought a larger schedule award for impairment of her legs. She had several prior accepted knee claims and an earlier award for the left leg. The Board found OWCP had not combined the related files needed to evaluate whether a new award was due. It ordered a combined review and a new decision.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
• Outcome: Schedule award denial set aside; related knee files combined for review.
• Key point: All relevant knee claim files were needed to assess impairment and prior awards.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
S.R., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 22-0665
)
Issued: January 15, 2025
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, VOORHEES POST )
OFFICE, Voorhees, NJ, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Russell T. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On March 29, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an October 25, 2021 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 2 The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 22 -0665.

ISSUE

On October 4, 2003, appellant, then a 51-year-old distribution clerk, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she developed synovitis and arthritis in both knees on October 3, 1 In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation. 2 The Board notes that following the October 25, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id. 2003 while in the performance of duty.3 In an accompanying statement, appellant explained that her extreme bilateral knee pain and pulling was due to walking up a 90-degree hill and steps to deliver a heavy parcel to a customer. OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for aggravation of synovitis in both knees.

On June 6, 2016, appellant, through counsel, filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) requesting a schedule award.

By decision dated July 15, 2016, OWCP granted appellant schedule award compensation for 23 percent permanent impairment of each of her lower extremities.

OWCP subsequently determined that she had previously received schedule award compensation for 24 percent permanent impairment of her left lower extremity. It, therefore, set aside the July 15, 2016 decision. By decision dated April 5, 2017 granted her a schedule award for 23 percent permanent impairment of her right lower extremity only.

Appellant, through counsel, appealed the April 5, 2017 OWCP decision to the Board. By decision dated May 29, 2018, the Board set aside the April 5, 2017 decision, finding that there was an unresolved conflict of medical opinion evidence regarding the nature and extent of appellant’s permanent impairment. The Board remanded the case to OWCP for referral to an impartial medical examiner (IME).

On remand, OWCP further developed the claim. By decision dated April 17, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an increased schedule award.

On April 24, 2019, appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. An oral hearing was held on August 8, 2019.

Appellant subsequently submitted additional medical evidence.

By decision dated October 15, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative vacated the April 17, 2019 decision, finding that further development of the medical evidence was required.

Following further development, by decision dated April 30, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an increased schedule award.

On May 5, 2020, appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. A hearing was held on August 13, 2020. Additional medical evidence was received.

3
OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx965. Appellant has prior lower extremity claims before OWCP. Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx918, OWCP accepted that she sustained other tear of medial meniscus of knee, left; and chondromalacia, except patella, left. Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx535, it accepted sprain of unspecified sites, knee and leg, left. OWCP has not administratively combined these claims.

2
By decision dated October 29, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative vacated the April 30, 2020 OWCP decision and ordered further development.

Following further development, by de novo decision dated April 12, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an increased schedule award.

On April 19, 2021, appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. The telephonic hearing took place on August 11, 2021.

By decision dated October 25, 2021, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the April 12, 2021 decision.

The Board, having duly considered this matter, finds that th e case is not in posture for decision.

OWCP’s procedures provide that cases should be administratively combined when correct adjudication of the issues depends on frequent cross-referencing between files, including when similar conditions are claimed in such cases. 4 This allows OWCP to consider all relevant claim files in developing a given claim. 5 Appellant’s claims under OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx965, xxxxxx918, and xxxxxx535 all involve the lower extremities, and should therefore be administratively combined for a full and fair adjudication. 6 This will allow OWCP to consider all relevant reports and accompanying evidence in developing appellant’s schedule award claim.7

The Board shall, therefore, remand the case for OWCP to administratively combine OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx965, xxxxxx918, and xxxxxx535. Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision. Accordingly,

4
Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, File Maintenance and Management, Chapter 2.400.8c (February 2000).
5
Id.
6
See Order Remanding Case, J.L., Docket No. 24-0785 (issued November 1, 2024); Order Remanding Case, M.T., Docket No. 24-0753 (issued September 23, 2024); Order Remanding Case, K.W., Docket No. 22-1258 (issued March 14, 2023). 7 Id., see also K.G., Docket No. 21-0068 (issued July 29, 2022); D.J., Docket No. 20-0997 (issued November 20, 2020); S.D., Docket No. 19-0590 (issued August 28, 2020).

3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 25, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: January 15, 2025
Washington, DC

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

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4