J.J. and U.S. Postal Service, Indianapolis Regional Processing and Distribution Center (Board decision, April 15, 2026)

ECAB remand decision. The Board set aside OWCP's December 23, 2025 denial and remanded for review of all medical 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 postal custodian reported an unwanted touching by a supervisor and sought FECA coverage for an emotional condition. OWCP accepted the incident but denied medical causation after treating the reports as signed only by a social worker. The Board found that a report in the record was also signed by a psychiatrist and directed OWCP to consider it 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's denial was set aside and remanded.
• Key point: OWCP had overlooked a psychiatrist's signature on relevant medical evidence.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
J.J., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 26-0219
) Issued: April 15, 2026
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, REGIONAL
)
PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER,
)
Indianapolis, IN, 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 5, 2026 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 23, 2025 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 26-0219.

On May 20, 2025 appellant, then a 53-year-old custodian, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 6, 2025, T.E., an employing establishment supervisor, inappropriately touched his buttocks and upper left thigh between the navel and groin while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on the date of injury and returned to work on May 12, 2025.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted evidence, including a narrative report dated June 9, 2025, wherein Heather McDonald, a licensed social worker, indicated that appellant, a disabled veteran, had been under her care since September 13, 2023 following a referral from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for multiple traumatic incidents. She noted the history of the May 6, 2025 incident, and the fact that he promptly sought treatment at a VA crisis mental health center for an exacerbation of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety symptoms. Ms. McDonald also noted that appellant reported feeling confused, overwhelmed, and unsafe at work due to the inappropriate touching by T.E. She diagnosed PTSD, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder, moderate recurrent episode.
In a development letter dated June 16, 2025, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of his claim. It advised him of the type of additional evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 60 days to respond.

In an attending physician’s report (Form OWCP-20) dated June 30, 2025, Ms. McDonald diagnosed PTSD, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depression. She opined that the May 6, 2025 incident “significantly aggravated [appellant’s] combat-related PTSD.” Ms. McDonald explained that his PTSD symptoms were manageable until the May 6, 2025 incident, which triggered symptoms, including hypervigilance, flashbacks, difficulty concentrating, nightmares, and isolation. She also noted that appellant missed several days from work due to psychiatric/mental health issues precipitated by the May 6, 2025 employment incident.

In a follow-up letter dated July 10, 2025, OWCP advised appellant that it had conducted an interim review, and the evidence remained insufficient to establish his claim. It noted that he had 60 days from the June 16, 2025 letter to submit the necessary evidence. OWCP further advised that if the evidence was not received during this time, it would issue a decision based on the evidence contained in the record.

OWCP thereafter received a copy of the June 30, 2025 Form CA-20, which had been co- signed on August 13, 2025 by Dr. Anne R. Wessel, a Board-certified psychiatrist.

By decision dated September 15, 2025, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the May 6, 2025 incident occurred, as alleged. Consequently, OWCP found that he had not met the requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

On September 24, 2025 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s September 15, 2025 decision.

By decision dated December 23, 2025, OWCP modified the September 15, 2025 decision to find that appellant had established a compensable employment factor. However, the claim remained denied as the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between appellant’s diagnosed medical condition and the accepted compensable employment factor. OWCP noted that the medical evidence submitted by appellant was signed solely by Ms. McDonald, a licensed social worker, who is not a physician and whose medical findings and/or opinions did not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.

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

In the case of William A. Couch,1 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 its December 23, 2025 decision, OWCP found that the medical evidence submitted by appellant was signed solely by Ms. McDonald, a licensed social worker. The case record, 1 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).

2 however, contains a Form CA-20, which was co-signed on August 13, 2025 by Dr. Wessel, a Board-certified psychiatrist. As OWCP did not consider or address this medical evidence of record, the OWCP failed to follow its procedures by not considering all relevant medical reports of record.2

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.3 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,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 23, 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: April 15, 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

2
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). 3 See A.P., Docket No. 25-0719 (issued November 17, 2025); A.B., supra note 1; C.S., Docket No. 18-1760 (issued November 25, 2019); Yvette N. Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004); see also William A. Couch, supra note 1.

3