R.M. and Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command (Board decision, August 5, 2026)

ECAB remand decision. The Board set aside OWCP's October 24, 2025 decision and returned the claim for review of all record evidence and a new decision; 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 civilian mariner claimed a left leg injury while aboard a Navy ship. OWCP denied the claim, and a hearing representative reviewed his duty status. The Board found that the representative failed to address a leave and earnings statement showing regular pay for the relevant period. It set aside the decision and directed OWCP to consider that evidence before deciding again.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c), 501.3.
• Outcome: OWCP decision set aside; claim remanded for complete evidence review.
• Key point: OWCP had to address the submitted payroll record before issuing its final decision.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
R.M., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 26-0063
) Issued: August 5, 2026
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, MILITARY
)
SEALIFT COMMAND, Norfolk, VA, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Alan J. Shapiro, 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 JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

On November 3, 2025 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an October 24, 2025 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 26-0063.

On June 29, 2024 appellant, then a 53-year-old wiper, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 28, 2024, while onboard United States Naval Ship (USNS) Rappahannock, he developed blood clots in his left leg while in the performance of duty.2 He noted that he later had his left leg amputated due to loss of blood flow. On the reverse side of the

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 OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx972. Appellant subsequently filed a Form CA-1 on September 25, 2024 for a November 17, 2023 right ankle injury under OWCP File No. xxxxxx570. On March 12, 2025 OWCP administratively combined OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx570 and xxxxxx972, with the latter serving as the master file. claim form, the employing establishment controverted the claim. It asserted that appellant did not perform or engage in any official duties in April 2024.

OWCP subsequently received medical evidence regarding appellant’s claim.

On July 15, 2024 J.B. provided a timecard analysis of appellant’s employment and leave status from March 30 through August 10, 2024, which reflected that he was in an on-board-ship status on USNS Rappahannock but did not list any hours for that period. He indicated that civil service mariners (CIVMARs) worked 112 hours per pay period and must be fully fit for duty without restriction or modification. J.B. also indicated that the employing establishment did not offer a light duty program for CIVMARs onboard ships or at shore side.

In a letter dated July 18, 2024, J.B. noted that on April 28, 2024 appellant was onboard USNS Rappahannock but did not perform any assigned duties. He related that “the ship leadership has reported that [he] was unable to perform [his] duties while onboard the ship. [Appellant remained] in [his] stateroom while on board due to health reasons/pain in leg preventing [him] from performing [his] assigned duties.”

By decision dated September 12, 2024, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the claimed injury occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged.

On September 13, 2024 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. A hearing was held on December 3, 2024.

OWCP subsequently received additional evidence.

By decision dated January 29, 2025, OWCP’s hearing representative vacated the September 12, 2024 decision and remanded the case to OWCP for further development.

By letter dated February 14, 2025, OWCP requested that the employing establishment confirm whether appellant performed employment duties onboard the ship on April 25, 2024 and, if not, whether he ever returned to duty following a prior injury.

In a response dated February 18, 2025, J.B. indicated that on March 30, 2024 appellant was “[assigned] to a ship and boarded the USNS Rappahannock and was in [his] stateroom/quarters according to the Master/Officer in Charge of USNS Rappahannock.” He noted that he was in a sick leave status onboard ship and did not perform his duties as a wiper on April 25, 2024.

A leave and earnings statement dated May 10, 2024 indicated that appellant was paid for 112 hours of “regular pay” for the pay period ending May 4, 2024.

By de novo decision dated March 18, 2025, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the claimed injury occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged.

2
On March 25, 2025 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. A hearing was held on August 21, 2025.

OWCP subsequently received additional evidence, including a sea service letter by J.O., a Ship Master from the USNS Rappahannock, who indicated that from March 30 to April 28, 2024 appellant’s billet (assigned quarters) was “wiper” and he received a total of 17 days creditable sea time with no periods of reduced operations status.

By decision dated October 24, 2025, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the March 18, 2025 decision, noting that appellant was physically onboard a vessel in a sick leave status from March 30 to April 29, 2024 and that there were “no timecards or other documentation verifying the claimant’s actual work hours during this time.”

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

In the case of William A. Couch,3 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.

In his July 15, 2024 letter, J.B. indicated that CIVMARs worked 112 hours per pay period.
On February 19, 2025 OWCP received a leave and earnings statement dated May 10, 2024, which indicated that appellant was paid for 112 hours of “regular pay” for the pay period ending May 4, 2024. OWCP’s hearing representative, however, did not review the May 10, 2024 earnings and leave statement. As the hearing representative did not consider or address this evidence of record, the hearing representative failed to follow OWCP’s procedures.4

As Board decisions are final with regard to the subject matter appealed, it is crucial that OWCP consider and address all relevant evidence received prior to the issuance of its final decision.5 On remand, OWCP shall review all evidence of record. Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision. Accordingly,

3
41 ECAB 548, 553 (1990); see also Order Remanding Case, A.B., Docket No. 22-0179 (issued June 28, 2022);
Order Remanding Case, S.H., Docket No. 19-1582 issued May 26, 2020); R.D., Docket No. 17-1818 (issued April 3, 2018). 4 OWCP’s procedures provide that all evidence submitted should be reviewed and discussed in the decision.
Evidence received following development that lacks probative value should also be acknowledged. Whenever possible, the evidence should be referenced by author and date. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Denials, Chapter 2.1401.5b(2) (November 2012). 5 See A.P., Docket No. 25-0719 (issued November 17, 2025); A.B., supra note 3; 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.

3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 24, 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: August 5, 2026
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

4