L.A. and U.S. Postal Service, Cardiss Collins Post Office (Board decision, June 12, 2026)

ECAB remand decision. The Board set aside OWCP's February 5, 2026 decision and remanded for a second opinion on increased left arm impairment. 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 had received a four percent left arm schedule award after an accepted shoulder injury. She later submitted a new physician's report rating impairment at ten percent. OWCP denied an increase without arranging the second opinion evaluation required by its procedures for the new award request. The Board returned the claim for medical development and a new decision.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c), 501.3.
• Outcome: Increased schedule award denial set aside and remanded.
• Key point: A new relevant impairment rating required OWCP to develop the increased award claim under its procedures.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
L.A., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 26-0356
) Issued: June 12, 2026
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CARDISS COLLINS
)
POST OFFICE, Chicago, IL, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On March 6, 2026 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a February 5, 2026 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 26-0356.2

On November 25, 2022 appellant, then a 31-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 18, 2022 she injured her left shoulder and neck when she lifted bags while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on the date of injury and returned to modified-duty work on November 24, 2022. OWCP accepted the claim for strains of

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 The Board notes that following the February 5, 2026 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, 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. the upper left arm and neck and later expanded its acceptance of the claim to include left shoulder impingement and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) of the left upper limb.

On February 21, 2023 appellant underwent surgery on her left shoulder by Dr. John Nikoleit, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, including arthroscopic subacromial decompression and distal clavicle resection.

On April 2, 2025 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a schedule award.

In a medical report dated May 28, 2025, Dr. Nikoleit documented physical examination findings in appellant’s left shoulder and diagnosed nontraumatic incomplete tear of left rotator cuff and CRPS type 1 of the left upper extremity.

On June 24, 2025 OWCP routed a statement of accepted facts and the case record to Dr. William Tontz, Jr., a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon serving as OWCP’s district medical adviser (DMA), for review and evaluation of appellant’s permanent impairment pursuant to the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides).3 In a report dated July 14, 2025, Dr. Tontz found four percent permanent impairment of the left upper extremity for partial tear of the rotator cuff. He indicated that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) as of May 28, 2025, the date of Dr. Nikoleit’s examination.

OWCP subsequently received a July 7, 2025 narrative report from Dr. Nikoleit, who indicated that appellant had reached MMI.

By decision dated August 12, 2025, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for four percent permanent impairment of the left upper extremity (shoulder and limb). The award ran for 12.48 weeks from May 28 through August 23, 2025.

On November 7, 2025 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of OWCP’s August 12, 2025 decision. In support thereof, she submitted a permanent impairment rating report by Dr. Neil Allen, a Board-certified internist and neurologist, who noted appellant’s subjective complaints and documented findings from a physical examination which occurred on July 17, 2025. Utilizing the A.M.A., Guides, he found 10 percent permanent impairment of the left upper extremity for acromioclavicular joint injury, status post clavicle excision.

By decision dated February 5, 2026, OWCP denied modification of its August 12, 2025 decision.

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

The Board has held that a claimant may request a schedule award or increased schedule award at any time based on evidence of a new exposure or medical evidence showing progression

3
A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2009).

2 of an employment-related condition resulting in permanent impairment or increased permanent impairment.4 When a claimant has requested reconsideration and has submitted new and relevant evidence with respect to a permanent impairment or an increased permanent impairment, then he or she will be entitled to a merit decision on the issue.5 OWCP’s procedures provide that all claims for an additional schedule award should be referred for a second opinion medical evaluation.6 Once findings are reconciled with any medical evidence submitted by the claimant, the impairment evaluation carrying the weight of the medical evidence should be routed to the DMA for review.7

In the present case, appellant submitted the permanent impairment rating report of Dr. Allen after OWCP’s August 12, 2025 schedule award decision. This report addressed the pertinent issue of this case, i.e., whether she was entitled to additional schedule award compensation for upper extremity impairment, as they contained impairment ratings that referenced the A.M.A., Guides. However, OWCP did not refer appellant for a second opinion evaluation in accordance with its procedures regarding medical development of claims for increased schedule awards. The case shall, therefore, be remanded to OWCP for further development of the medical evidence, to be followed by a de novo decision regarding appellant’s claim for an increased schedule award. Accordingly,

4
Order Remanding Case E.S., Docket No. 20-0656 (issued February 5, 2021); R.D., Docket No. 18-0579 (issued September 14, 2018); D.S., Docket No. 17-0407 (issued May 24, 2017). 5 See J.B., Docket No. 24-0011 (issued March 19, 2024); C.W., Docket No. 18-1110 (issued December 28, 2018);
Linda T. Brown, 51 ECAB 115 (1999); Paul R. Reedy, 45 ECAB 488 (1994); see also B.K., 59 ECAB 228 (2007). 6 See Order Remanding Case R.Y., Docket No. 25-0314 (issued March 11, 2025).
7
Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, Chapter 2.808.9b-d (February 2022).

3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 5, 2026 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: June 12, 2026
Washington, DC

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

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4