S.C. and U.S. Postal Service, Boggs Road Post Office (Board decision, August 10, 2026)

ECAB remand decision. The Board set aside OWCP's December 16, 2025 denial of a pay rate recalculation and returned the matter for a reasoned decision; the correct rate 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's finality rule in 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b) generally bars court review of compensation decisions; this remand does not determine the rate.

Plain-English summary

A postal worker receiving compensation after a hand injury asked OWCP to recalculate her pay rate using a later period of disability. OWCP denied the request without identifying the evidence it considered or explaining the calculation. The Board found that the brief denial did not provide the findings and reasons required for a pay rate decision. It set aside the denial and ordered OWCP to issue a new decision with an explanation. The Board did not decide which rate applies.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8124(a); 20 C.F.R. § 10.126.
• Outcome: Pay rate recalculation denial set aside and remanded.
• Key point: OWCP needed to identify the evidence and explain the basis for its compensation rate calculation.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
S.C., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 26-0271
) Issued: August 10, 2026
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BOGGS ROAD POST
)
OFFICE, Duluth, GA, 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 22, 2026 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 16, 2025 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 26-0271.1

On July 25, 2022 appellant, then a 30-year-old mail handler assistant, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 13, 2022 she sustained a right ring finger fracture when a heavy box slammed into her hand and crushed her finger between the metal belt while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on July 13, 2022 and returned to work on July 14, 2022. On September 8, 2022 OWCP accepted the claim for nondisplaced fracture of proximal phalanx of the right ring finger. It subsequently expanded the acceptance of the claim to include the additional conditions of displaced fracture of proximal phalanx of the right ring finger and other specified disorders of synovium, right hand. OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental and periodic rolls.

1
The Board notes that, following the December 16, 2025 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedures 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.
In an April 8, 2025 revised payment memorandum, OWCP calculated appellant’s pay rate based on a July 13, 2022 date of injury.

On December 1, 2025 appellant disputed her pay rate, asserting that it should be calculated using her highest salary during the period of her disability from August 2, 2024 through September 5, 2025. She reported that she stopped work on August 2, 2024 because the employing establishment could not accommodate her medical restrictions which limited night shifts.

By decision dated December 16, 2025, OWCP summarily denied appellant’s request for recalculation of her compensation pay rate due to her August 2, 2024 work stoppage.

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

OWCP summarily denied appellant’s request for recalculation of her compensation pay rate due without complying with the review requirements of FECA and its implementing regulations.2 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. 3 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.4 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.5

In its December 16, 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 the calculation of her pay rate.6 It denied appellant’s claim, without identifying the specific evidence reviewed or sufficiently explaining its calculation.

Therefore, the Board shall set aside OWCP’s December 16, 2025 decision and remand the case for findings of fact and a statement of reasons for its decision pursuant to the standards set forth in section 5 U.S.C. § 8124(a) and 20 C.F.R. § 10.126. After any further development deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision. Accordingly,

2
See Order Remanding Case, T.B., Docket No. 25-0421 (issued June 23, 2025); 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). 3 5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).
4
20 C.F.R. § 10.126.
5
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). 6 See D.O., Docket No. 22-0315 (issued June 29, 2022).

2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 16, 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 10, 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

3