S.A. and U.S. Postal Service, Encino Park Post Office, Encino Ledge, TX (Board decision, January 13, 2023)

ECAB remand decision. The Board set aside OWCP's February 4, 2022 denial and returned S.A.'s disability claim for review of all the evidence and a new decision; entitlement for the claimed period 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

S.A., a rural postal carrier, sought disability compensation after symptoms in her left hand and wrist led her to stop work in November 2021. OWCP denied the claim, saying she had not supplied a detailed medical report explaining why she could not do her light-duty assignment. The Board found that OWCP had received her physician's January 14, 2022 narrative report before its decision but had not addressed it. The Board set aside the denial and directed OWCP to review all the evidence and issue a new decision.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Board review record, 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c); obligation to address evidence received before a final decision.
• Outcome: Disability denial set aside and remanded for a new decision.
• Key point: OWCP must address a medical report received before it rules on a disability claim.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
S.A., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 22-1231
) Issued: January 13, 2023
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ENCINO PARK POST
)
OFFICE, Encino Ledge, TX, Employer
)
__________ )

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

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On August 1, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 4, 2022 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-1231.

On May 16, 2016 appellant, then a 63-year-old rural letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 12, 2016 she injured her back, hands, and left shoulder when she fell backward while in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for lower back strain, right wrist sprain, fracture of the lower end of left radius and sprain of left shoulder joint. It subsequently expanded the acceptance of the claim to include a left carpal tunnel syndrome. Appellant underwent an open reduction and internal fixation of her wrist on July 21, 2016. OWCP paid wage-loss compensation benefits on its supplemental rolls from July 21, 2016 through September 12, 2019. Appellant stopped work on November 22, 2021.

1
The Board notes that, following the February 4, 2022 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. On December 8, 2021 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for temporary total disability from work for the period November 22 through December 3, 2021. She submitted a November 21, 2021 duty status report (Form CA-17) and a November 21, 2021 work status form report from Dr. Jeffrey J. Munoz, a Board-certified family practitioner, which indicated that she was disabled from work for the period November 22 through December 20, 2021.

In a December 14, 2021 development letter, OWCP noted its receipt of appellant’s CA-7 form claiming compensation effective November 22, 2021 and continuing and that the evidence of record indicated that she had not returned to work following her November 22, 2021 work stoppage despite a light/limited-duty assignment being available within her medical restrictions with the employing establishment for the period of claimed lost time. It advised appellant that she should submit medical evidence which contained a well-rationalized medical explanation with objective findings which supported disability or a worsening of her condition such that she was no longer able to perform the duties of her light/limited-duty assignment when she stopped work on November 22, 2021. OWCP afforded her 30 days to submit the requested information.

OWCP received an additional Form CA-7 claim for disability from work for the period December 4 through 20, 2021 along with medical reports from Dr. Munoz dated December 20, 2021 through January 3, 2022.

On January 19, 2022 OWCP also received a January 14, 2022 narrative report from Dr. Munoz. Dr. Munoz noted the history of the May 12, 2016 work-related injury, that appellant had been able to return to her job as a mail carrier with permanent restrictions of no lifting or carrying more than 10 pounds. He indicated that when appellant was seen on November 21, 2021, she had a flareup in swelling, decreased motion due to swellin g, pain, increased tingling and numbness and that, apparently, there was an increase in the volume of mail and packages before the visit. Dr. Munoz reported his examination findings and indicated that, due to those objective findings and subjective history, appellant was placed off work to stop use of her left hand other than for activities of daily living. He further offered an explanation as to why light-duty tasks would not have accomplished the desired result and why she was continued off work through January 3, 2022, when he released her back to work with continued permanent restrictions of no lifting or carrying more than 10 pounds.

By decision dated February 4, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability from work for the period commencing November 22, 2021.

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that this case is not in posture for decision. In the case of William A. Couch,2 the Board held that when adjudicating a claim, OWCP is obligated to consider and address all evidence properly submitted by a claimant and received by OWCP before the final decision is issued.

While OWCP is not required to list every piece of evidence submitted to the record, the record is clear that Dr. Munoz’ January 14, 2022 medical report was not referenced or reviewed

2
41 ECAB 548 (1990); see also R.D., Docket No. 17-1818 (issued April 3, 2018).

2 by OWCP in its February 4, 2022 decision. 3 Its February 4, 2022 decision indicated that appellant did not provide a detailed medial narrative report from a medical doctor with objective findings as to how her work-related medical conditions worsened and that the medical reports received were last submitted on January 18, 2022. Dr. Munoz’ January 14, 2022 medical report was received on January 19, 2022, prior to the issuance of OWCP’s February 4, 2022 decision.

It is crucial that OWCP review and address all evidence received prior to the issuance of its final decision, as the Board’s decisions are final with regard to the subject matter appealed. 4 The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision as OWCP did not review and address the above-noted evidence in its February 4, 2022 decision.5 On remand OWCP shall review and address all evidence of record and, following any further development as it deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 4, 2022 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 13, 2023
Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

3
See N.M., Docket No. 21-0357 (issued September 30, 2022); C.D., Docket No. 20-0168 (issued March 5, 2020).
4
N.M., id.; see C.S., Docket No. 18-1760 (issued November 25, 2019); Yvette N. Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004); see also William A. Couch, supra note 2.
5
N.M., id.; V.C., Docket No. 16-0694 (issued August 19, 2016).

3