D.P. and U.S. Postal Service, Cardiss Collins Post Office (Board decision, March 3, 2025)

ECAB remand decision. The Board set aside OWCP’s two decisions and returned the forklift injury claim for review of evidence in the combined case file. Entitlement 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 mail handler claimed back injuries after a forklift collision at work. OWCP combined the current claim with an earlier back injury file but did not address a physician’s report in that combined record before denying modification. The Board found that OWCP had to consider the evidence received before its final decision. It set aside both October and November 2024 decisions and ordered a new decision after review of the combined evidence.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: FECA; 5 U.S.C. § 8101.
• Outcome: Two OWCP decisions set aside; claim remanded for complete evidence review.
• Key point: OWCP must consider relevant evidence in the combined file before denying a claim.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
D.P., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 25-0295
)
Issued: March 3, 2025
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CARDISS COLLINS )
POST OFFICE, Chicago, IL, 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 JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

On February 5, 2025, appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 30, 2024 merit decision and a November 19, 2024 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 25-0295.1

On March 28, 2024 appellant, then a mail handler, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on March 24, 2024 he injured his low back when he was struck in the back by a forklift while in the performance of duty. 2 He stopped work on the date of injury and returned to full-time modified-duty work on March 25, 2024.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a series of medical notes dated April 9 through June 4, 2024 by Dr. Dalip Pelinkovic, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed

1
The Board notes that, following the November 19, 2024 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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. 2 OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx014. Appellant previously filed a Form CA-1 for a March 13, 2013 low back strain, which OWCP processed as a short form closure under OWCP File No. xxxxxx126. lumbar radiculopathy and spondylolisthesis and indicated that appellant was unable to return to work.

By decision dated October 10, 2024, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between his diagnosed medical conditions and the accepted March 24, 2024 employment incident.

On October 23, 2024 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s October 10, 2024 decision. In support of his request, he submitted an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated August 6, 2024 by Dr. Pelinkovic, who noted a history that appellant was driving a forklift and was struck by another forklift. He diagnosed spondylolisthesis and lumbar radiculopathy. Dr. Pelinkovic opined that the conditions were caused or aggravated by an employment activity and explained that appellant “was struck/ran into while driving a forklift by another forklift while working.”

Also on October 23, 2024, under OWCP File No. xxxxxx126, OWCP received an October 14, 2024 medical report by Dr. Pelinkovic. Dr. Pelinkovic noted that appellant related complaints of low back pain, which he attributed to a work injury on March 24, 2024 when the forklift he was driving was forcefully struck by another forklift. He documented physical examination findings and diagnosed lumbar stenosis, radiculopathy, and spondylolisthesis due to the March 24, 2024 employment incident. Dr. Pelinkovic explained that forklifts have a significant mass that prevent them from toppling over when lifting items over a certain height, and that this inherent large mass plus the velocity at impact resulted in significant mechanical forces, which was transferred to appellant as the driver. He noted that his trunk was jerked in the opposite direction of his seated pelvis, which exerted mechanical force at the lumbosacral junction and lead to a structural change at that level. Dr. Pelinkovic indicated that the impact accelerated generative spinal conditions beyond natural progression, and that the sudden pathologic force on the lumbosacral junction resulted in further compromise of the spinal canal and translational and shear forces that exacerbated and aggravated degenerative changes and resulted in symptomatic spondylolisthesis.

On October 30, 2024, OWCP administratively combined OWCP File No. xxxxxx126 and OWCP File No. xxxxxx014, with the latter serving as the master file.

By decision dated October 30, 2024, OWCP denied modification of its October 10, 2024 decision.

On November 12, 2024 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s October 30, 2024 decision.

By decision dated November 19, 2024, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of his claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

2
In the case of William A. Couch,3 the Board held that, when adjudicating a claim, OWCP is obligated to consider 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, it failed to consider and address the evidence of record in the combined master file, OWCP File No. xxxxxx126, prior to denying modification of the October 10, 2024 decision.4

It is crucial that OWCP consider and address all evidence received prior to the issuance of its final decision, as Board decisions are final with regard to the subject matter appealed. 5 The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision as OWCP did not consider and address the above-noted evidence in its October 30, 2024 decision.6 On remand, OWCP shall review all of the evidence submitted on reconsideration. Following this, and other such further development as deemed necessary, it shall issue an de novo decision. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 30 and November 19, 2024 decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: March 3, 2025
Washington, DC

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

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

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3
41 ECAB 548 (1990); see J.R., Docket No. 21-1421 (issued April 20, 2022); see also R.D., Docket No. 17-1818 (issued April 3, 2018).
4
See C.D., Docket No. 20-0168 (issued March 5, 2020).
5
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 3.
6
See Order Remanding Case, L.G., Docket No. 23-0637 (issued September 15, 2023).

3