S.W. and U.S. Postal Service, Old National Post Office (Board decision, August 18, 2026)

ECAB remand decision. The Board set aside OWCP's November 18, 2025 denial of reconsideration and returned the matter for a reasoned decision; the underlying benefit termination remains unresolved in this appeal. 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 restore benefits.

Plain-English summary

OWCP ended a postal carrier's wage loss compensation and medical benefits after finding her accepted injury had resolved. She requested reconsideration and argued that OWCP's medical examiner had overlooked a critical accepted fact. OWCP denied the request in a brief statement without addressing her argument. The Board found that OWCP had not explained its reasons as required and set aside the denial. OWCP must issue a new decision that discusses the argument and explains whether reconsideration is warranted.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8124(a); 20 C.F.R. § 10.126.
• Outcome: Summary denial of reconsideration set aside and remanded for a reasoned decision.
• Key point: OWCP needed to address the worker's specific argument and explain its decision.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
S.W., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 26-0527
) Issued: August 18, 2026
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, OLD NATIONAL
)
POST OFFICE, Atlanta, GA, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Wayne Johnson, 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 May 18, 2026 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a November 18, 2025 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 26-0527.2

On April 9, 2009 appellant, then a 44-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she injured her left ankle, right knee, and right elbow when she slipped and fell on an uneven sidewalk while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on April 10, 2009 and returned to work on April 15, 2009. OWCP accepted the claim for left ankle sprain and tenosynovitis, contusions of the left elbow and knee, left plantar fasciitis, and abrasions without infection of the right leg, elbow, and forearm. It paid appellant wage-loss compensation

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 November 18, 2025 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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. on the supplemental rolls effective December 9, 2009, and on the periodic rolls effective November 12, 2017.

In a notice dated January 19, 2024, OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to terminate her wage-loss compensation and medical benefits based on a November 7, 2023 report of Dr. Alexander Doman, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon serving as OWCP’s referral physician.

By decision dated March 8, 2024, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, effective that date. It found that Dr. Doman’s opinion constituted the weight of the medical opinion evidence and established that appellant no longer had disability or residuals causally related to the accepted April 9, 2009 employment injury.

On April 8, 2024 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. A hearing was held on July 12, 2024. OWCP also received additional reports by Dr. Kalish dated August 29, 2023 and March 19, 2024.

By decision dated October 4, 2024, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the March 8, 2024 termination decision.

On October 4, 2025 appellant, through her representative, requested reconsideration of the October 4, 2024 decision. Counsel argued that OWCP improperly accorded the weight of the medical opinion evidence to Dr. Doman’s November 7, 2023 report to terminate appellant’s wage- loss compensation and medical benefits, effective March 8, 2024, as Dr. Doman had disregarded a critical element of the SOAF.

By decision dated November 18, 2025, OWCP summarily denied appellant’s request for reconsideration, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). The November 18, 2025 decision merely noted: “your letter neither raised substantive legal questions nor included new and relevant evidence, it is insufficient to warrant a review of our decision of our prior decision at this time.”

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

The Board finds that OWCP did not make findings regarding the argument counsel submitted in support of the reconsideration request.3 Rather, the November 18, 2025 decision simply noted: “your letter neither raised substantive legal questions nor included new and relevant evidence, it is insufficient to warrant a review of our decision of our prior decision at this time.” As OWCP summarily denied appellant’s request for reconsideration, it did not comply with the review requirements of FECA and its implementing regulations.4

3
See Order Remanding Case, R.C., Docket No. 21-0845 (issued December 13, 2021); Order Remanding Case, R.C., Docket No. 20-1671 (issued May 6, 2021); Order Remanding Case, J.K., Docket No. 20-0556 (issued August 13, 2020); Order Remanding Case, C.D., Docket No. 20-0450 (issued August 13, 2020); Order Remanding Case, T.B., Docket No. 20-0426 (issued July 27, 2020). 4 See C.G., Docket No. 20-0051 (issued June 29, 2020); T.P., Docket No. 19-1533 (issued April 30, 2020); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b).

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.5 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.6 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.7

The Board shall therefore set aside OWCP’s November 18, 2025 decision and remand the case for an appropriate decision which describes the arguments submitted on reconsideration and provides detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting the reconsideration request.8 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 18, 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 18, 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

5
5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).
6
20 C.F.R. § 10.126.
7
Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5 (February 2013).
8
5 U.S.C. § 8124(a). 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. Id. at Chapter 2.1401.5(b)(2) (November 2012).

3