R.L. and Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir (Board decision, August 7, 2026)

ECAB remand decision. The Board set aside OWCP's February 15, 2024 rescission decision and returned the case for reconstruction of the record and a new decision; claim acceptance 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's finality rule in 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b) generally bars court review of compensation decisions; this remand does not award benefits.

Plain-English summary

A Defense Logistics Agency employee appealed OWCP's rescission of acceptance of a left ankle sprain claim. The Board found that OWCP had not sent the complete case record despite an earlier order to do so. Without that record, the Board could not decide the merits of the rescission. It set aside OWCP's decision and directed OWCP to reconstruct and properly assemble the record before issuing a new decision.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c), 501.3.
• Outcome: Rescission decision set aside; case remanded to rebuild the record and decide again.
• Key point: The Board could not review a rescission decision without the complete claim record.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
R.L., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 24-0468
) Issued: August 7, 2026
DEFENSE AGENCIES, DEFENSE LOGISTIC
)
AGENCY, Fort Belvoir, VA, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Karen M. Hertz, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On March 29, 2024 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a February 15, 2024 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 24-0468.

The Clerk of the Appellate Boards then served the Director of OWCP with a copy of appellant’s appeal and requested that OWCP transmit the case record to the Board in accordance with the Board’s Rules of Procedure.2 OWCP subsequently forwarded the case record to the Board.

The Board notes that by decision dated June 21, 2023, OWCP rescinded its acceptance of appellant’s claim for left ankle sprain. It based its rescission on the video footage of July 18, 2022,

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 20 C.F.R. § 501.4. and the escalator inspection reports. Subsequently, following a request for reconsideration, by decision dated February 15, 2024, OWCP denied modification of its June 21, 2023 rescission decision.

The case record as transmitted to the Board did not include the video footage on which OWCP based its rescission decision. By order dated June 5, 2024,3 the Board directed OWCP to produce the complete case record within 30 days, including the video footage of July 18, 2022, and the escalator inspection reports. OWCP subsequently submitted a memorandum to the file dated September 27, 2022, indicating that it received physical evidence from the employing establishment. It described the physical evidence merely as “16 videos saved in two separate folders on [Amazon Web Services] AWS platform.” Although OWCP responded to the Board’s prior order to complete the record, its memorandum neither provided links, or instructions on how to access the video footage on the AWS platform, nor did it sufficiently describe the content of the video footage.

The Board, having duly considered this matter, finds that the case is not in posture for decision as OWCP has not transmitted the complete contents of appellant’s case record for review by the Board. Section 501.2(c) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure,4 provides that the Board has jurisdiction to consider and decide appeals from the final decision of OWCP in any case arising under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.5 Because the case record as transmitted to the Board is incomplete and would not permit an informed adjudication of the case, 6 the Board is unable to properly consider and decide appellant’s claim. The case, therefore, is remanded to OWCP for reconstruction and proper assemblage of the record.7 After such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision regarding its rescission of the acceptance of appellant’s claim. Accordingly,

3
Order to Complete the Record Within 30 Days, Docket No. 24-0468 (issued June 5, 2024).
4
20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c).
5
5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
6
See Order Remanding Case, J.L., Docket No. 25-0133 (issued September 25, 2025); Order Remanding Case, J.C., Docket No. 21-1402 (issued January 11, 2023); Order Remanding Case, G.B., Docket No. 20-0236 (issued October 9, 2020). 7 Id.

2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 15, 2024 rescission 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: August 7, 2026
Washington, DC

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

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

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

3