W.M. and U.S. Postal Service, Durham Post Office (Board decision, March 10, 2025)

ECAB remand decision. The Board set aside OWCP's schedule-award denial and returned the claim for review of submitted medical evidence; the rating 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 Durham postal worker sought an increased schedule award. OWCP denied the claim without addressing a physician report it had received before the decision. The Board ordered OWCP to consider that report and issue a new decision.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
• Outcome: Schedule-award denial set aside; omitted evidence to be reviewed.
• Key point: OWCP had to address medical evidence received before its final ruling.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
W.M., Appellant
)
)
Docket No. 25-0320
and ) Issued: March 10, 2025
)
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, DURHAM POST )
OFFICE, Durham, NC, 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 February 14, 2025, appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 13, 2025 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 25-0320.

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

On November 13, 2000, appellant, then a 35-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 9, 2000 he injured his lower back and legs when lifting heavy parcels overhead and twisting and stretching to place the parcels into a bulk mail container while in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for lumbar strain and

1
Docket No. 11-832 (issued February 24, 2012); Docket No. 13-291 (issued June 12, 2013). thereafter expanded its acceptance of the claim to include aggravation of degeneration of lumbar or lumbosacral intervertebral disc.2

By decision dated August 12, 2009, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for one percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity. The award ran from June 11 through July 1, 2008.

By decision dated November 5, 2009, OWCP granted appellant an increased schedule award for “10 [percent] additional impairment for loss of the use of the left leg.” The award ran from July 2, 2008 through January 19, 2009.

By decision dated January 19, 2011, OWCP determined that the medical evidence did not support 11 percent permanent impairment of his left lower extremity due to his spinal condition and found that appellant was only entitled to a schedule award for 1 percent permanent impairment.

On February 15, 2011, appellant appealed to the Board. By decision dated February 24, 2012 3, the Board found, that appellant had no more than one percent permanent impairment of his left lower extremity and that his date of maximum medical improvement (MMI) was August 3, 2004.

On December 6, 2024, appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for an increased schedule award.

In a development letter dated December 11, 2024, OWCP requested that appellant submit an impairment evaluation from his attending physician addressing whether he had reached MMI, the diagnosis on which impairment is based, a detailed description of all pertinent clinical findings, a comprehensive description of any permanent impairment, and an impairment rating using the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides)4. It afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

On January 10, 2025, OWCP received an undated narrative by Dr. Fadi Deeb, a Board- certified internist, who noted appellant’s complaints and examination findings. Dr. Deeb opined that without surgical intervention, his condition had reached a steady state , and his chances of a spontaneous recovery were negligible. He indicated that he was unable to provide an opinion on permanent impairment and suggested an evaluation by a spinal surgeon.

2
OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx967. Appellant filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) on November 3, 2003, alleging additional spinal injuries due to factors of his federal employment, including pushing, pulling, and bouncing while riding a train. OWCP accepted that claim for disc degeneration of the cervical and lumbosacral regions and aggravation at C3 through C7 under OWCP File No. xxxxxx952. It paid appellant wage-loss compensation for total disability on the supplemental rolls, effective July 12, 2004 and on the periodic rolls, effective May 15, 2005. OWCP administratively combined OWCP File No. xxxxxx952 and OWCP File No. xxxxxx967, with the latter serving as the master file. 3 Docket No. 11-832 (issued February 24, 2012).
4
A.M.A., Guides (6 th ed. 2009).

2
By de novo decision dated January 13, 2025, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that h is low back condition had reached a fixed and permanent state.

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

In the case of William A. Couch,5 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, the Board notes that the narrative by Dr. Deeb, received by OWCP on January 10, 2025, was not considered and addressed by OWCP in its January 13, 2025 decision.6

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. 7 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 January 13, 2025 decision.8 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 appropriate decision. Accordingly,

5
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).
6
See C.D., Docket No. 20-0168 (issued March 5, 2020).
7
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 5.
8
See Order Remanding Case, L.G., Docket No. 23-0637 (issued September 15, 2023).

3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 13, 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

4