T.D. and U.S. Postal Service, Madison Square Garden Station (Board decision, March 10, 2025)

ECAB remand decision. The Board set aside OWCP's summary refusal to reconsider and ordered a reasoned decision on the request; the underlying claim 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 worker sought reconsideration after an earlier benefit termination. OWCP denied the request as late without explaining why the submitted evidence failed the clear-error standard. The Board returned the request for findings and a clear statement of reasons.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
• Outcome: Summary reconsideration denial set aside; reasoned decision ordered.
• Key point: OWCP had to explain how it assessed the submitted evidence.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
T.D., Appellant
)
)
Docket No. 25-0238
and ) Issued: March 10, 2025
)
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MADISON SQUARE )
GARDEN STATION, New York, NY, 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
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On January 20, 2025, appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 6, 2025 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), which denied her request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 25-0238.

This case has previously been before the Board.1 The facts and circumstances of the case as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as follows.

On May 6, 2019, appellant, then a 31-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-l) alleging that, on that day, she injured her left thumb when handling a heavy flat bundle while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on the date of injury. 2

1
Docket No. 21-0321 (issued July 13, 2021).
2
A September 25, 2024 memorandum of telephone call (Form CA-110) indicated that on June 24, 2024 appellant returned to work with restrictions.
On July 12, 2019, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left thumb sprain. It paid her wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls commencing June 21, 2019, and on the periodic rolls commencing May 24, 2020.

By decision dated December 15, 2020, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits effective that date, finding that an August 4, 2020 medical opinion of Dr. Leon Sultan, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon and second opinion physician, was entitled to the weight of the medical evidence and established that appellant no longer had disability or residuals due to her accepted May 6, 2019 employment injury.

On January 4, 2021, appellant filed a timely appeal with the Board. By decision dated July 13, 2021, the Board affirmed OWCP’s December 15, 2020 termination decision.3

OWCP subsequently received medical evidence covering the period October 29, 2021 through April 29, 2024, which addressed appellant’s left thumb condition, work capacity, and medical treatment.

On December 23, 2024, appellant requested reconsideration.

By decision dated January 6, 2025, OWCP summarily denied appellant’s reconsideration request, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

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

OWCP summarily denied appellant’s request for reconsideration without complying with the review requirements of FECA and its implementing regulations. 4 Section 8124(a) of FECA provides that OWCP shall determine and make a finding of fact and make an award for or against payment of compensation. 5 Its regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 provide that the decision of the Director of OWCP shall contain findings of fact and a statement of reasons. 6 As well, OWCP’s procedures provide that the reasoning behind OWCP’s evaluation should be clear enough for the reader to understand the precise defect of the claim and the kind of evidence which would overcome it.7

3
Supra note 1.
4
See Order Remanding Case, J.B., Docket No. 24-0760 (issued August 28, 2024); Order Remanding Case, J.D., Docket No. 24-0044 (issued April 22, 2024); Order Remanding Case, R.G., Docket No. 23-0011 (issued June 14, 2023); Order Remanding Case, C.G., Docket No. 20-0051 (issued June 29, 2020); see also 20 C.F.R.
§ 10.607(b).
5
5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).
6
20 C.F.R. § 10.126.
7
Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5 (February 2013) (all decisions should contain findings of fact sufficient to identify the benefit being denied and the reason for the disallowance).

2
In its January 6, 2025 decision, OWCP did not discharge its responsibility to set forth findings of fact and a clear statement of reasons, explaining the disposition, so that appellant could understand the basis for its decision regarding clear evidence of error. This case must, therefore, be remanded to OWCP for an appropriate decision regarding the request for reconsideration that describes the evidence submitted and provides detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting the request for reconsideration, pursuant to the relevant standards. 8

The Board shall therefore set aside OWCP’s January 6, 2025 decision and remand the case for an appropriate decision, which describes the evidence submitted and provides detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting the reconsideration request. 9 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 6, 2025 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: March 10, 2025
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

8
See D.M., Docket 23-1154 (issued February 29, 2024); R.T., Docket No. 19-0604 (issued September 13, 2019).
9
Id.

3