United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.R., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, SAVANNAH 

RIVER SITE OPERATIONS OFFICE, 

Aiken, SC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0235 

Issued: December 21, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

On November 10, 2014 appellant filed an application for review of a July 22, 2014 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) which denied a request for 

surgery. The appeal was docketed as No. 15-235. 

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that section 8124(a) of the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and section 10.126 of the implementing regulations2

require that final decisions of OWCP contain findings of fact and a statement of reasons. A 

decision denying a claim for benefits should contain a correct description of the basis for the 

denial in order that the parties of interest will have a clear understanding of the precise defect of 

the claim and the kind of evidence which would overcome it.3

 The Board notes that OWCP’s 

July 22, 2014 decision is incomplete and contains insufficient explanation of how OWCP 

exercised it discretion in denying appellant’s requested surgery. The portion of the decision 

entitled “Basis For Decision” states in its entirety: “The evidence is not sufficient to authorize 

the proposed fusion of foot bones is hereby declined for the reason that the evidence presented is 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8124(a). 

2

 20 C.F.R. § 10.126. 

3 Patrick Michael Duffy, 43 ECAB 280 (1991). 
2

not sufficient because you failed to provide a current MRI [magnetic resonance imaging scan] as 

requested for review by [OWCP].” In its decision of July 22, 2014, OWCP failed to conform to 

its established procedure, provisions of FECA, and its implementing regulations, and Board 

precedent, all of which require that a final adverse decision of OWCP contain findings of fact 

and a clear explanation of the deficiencies of the claim.4

 Because its July 14, 2014 decision does 

not contain a complete description of the basis for the denial of the claim or the findings of fact 

reached therein, the Board finds that OWCP has not fulfilled its responsibility under section 

8124 of FECA. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated July 22, 2014 is set aside and the case remanded for a de novo

decision with appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.5

Issued: December 21, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 4 Id.; see 5 U.S.C. § 8124(a); 20 C.F.R. § 10.126. See also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, 

Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5 (February 2013) (regarding the elements that an OWCP decision should contain). 

5

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge, participated in the original decision but was no longer a member of the 

Board effective November 16, 2015.