United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.K., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL 

FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMANDCENTERS, Dahlgren, VA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1769 

Issued: April 4, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

On August 24, 2015 appellant filed a timely application for review from a March 12, 

2015 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying his 

request for reconsideration. The Clerk of the Board docketed the appeal as No. 15-1769. 

OWCP accepted that on June 17, 2008 appellant, then a 46-year-old cross connection 

control systems inspector, sustained a left knee strain. It authorized a left knee partial 

meniscectomy performed on August 15, 2008. Appellant returned to full-time limited-duty work 

on September 2, 2008. On May 27, 2009 OWCP expanded the acceptance of appellant’s claim 

to include an adverse effect of a drug, medicinal, and biological substance. On October 19, 2010 

it granted appellant a schedule award for eight percent permanent impairment of the left leg 

based on an August 24, 2010 medical opinion of Dr. Wylie D. Lowery, Jr., a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon and an impartial medical specialist. In a June 22, 2011 decision, OWCP 

found that appellant was entitled to a schedule award for an additional 18 percent impairment of 

the left leg, for a total of 26 percent, based on a May 26, 2011 medical opinion of its medical 

adviser. On August 23, 2012 it expanded the acceptance of appellant’s claim to include 

localized secondary osteoarthritis of the lower left leg based on the October 1, 2012 reports of 

Dr. Kurt R. Larson, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. On December 18, 2013 appellant filed 

a claim for an additional schedule award. He contended that Dr. Larson’s November 14, 2013 
2

report, which found that he had 40 percent impairment of the left leg under the sixth edition of 

the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., 

Guides), supported additional impairment to his left leg. In an April 1, 2014 decision, OWCP 

denied appellant’s claim for an increased schedule award finding that the medical evidence was 

insufficient. 

On November 29, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration of the April 1, 2014 decision. 

He contended that he was entitled to an increased schedule award because Dr. Larson had 

supported an additional 14 percent impairment to his left lower extremity, for a total of 40 

percent. Appellant maintained that the physician’s statements regarding his range of motion 

were overlooked by OWCP. In a November 22, 2013 report, Dr. Larson related that appellant 

was previously given an intra-articular injection in the right hip. He gave him a repeat 

ultrasound-guided injection in the right hip. In a September 8, 2014 report, Dr. Bhavin S. Suthar, 

a Board-certified physiatrist, provided appellant’s history and findings on examination. He 

assessed low back pain, lumbar spondylosis with myelopathy, and lumbar facet syndrome. 

By decision dated March 12, 2015, OWCP denied further merit review of appellant’s 

claim. It found that the evidence submitted did not support that it had erroneously applied or 

interpreted a point of law. 

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

decision. Section 8124(a) of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act provides that OWCP 

shall determine and make a finding of fact and make an award for or against payment of 

compensation.1

 Its regulations also state that the decision shall contain findings of fact and a 

statement of reasons.2 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.3 

In its March 12, 2015 decision, OWCP did not discharge its responsibility to provide 

appellant a statement explaining the disposition so that appellant could understand the basis for 

the decision as well as the precise defect and the evidence needed to overcome the denial of his 

claim. The Board notes that OWCP denied appellant’s November 29, 2014 request for 

reconsideration because it did not establish that OWCP had erroneously applied or interpreted a 

point of law, but failed to provide any discussion of the evidence he submitted in support of his 

reconsideration request and to explain how the evidence was insufficient to warrant a merit 

review of his claim. 

Accordingly, the case must be returned to OWCP for a proper decision which includes 

findings of fact and a clear and precise statement regarding appellant’s request for 

reconsideration on the denial of his claim for an increased schedule award or why he is not 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8124(a); see Hubert Jones, Jr., 57 ECAB 467 (2006); Paul M. Colosi, 56 ECAB 294 (2005). 

2

 20 C.F.R. § 10.126; see also O.R., 59 ECAB 432 (2008); Teresa A. Ripley, 56 ECAB 528 (2005); M.L., Docket 

No. 09-956 (issued April 15, 2010). 

3

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5 (c) (February 2013). 
3

entitled to further reconsideration. Following this and such further development as OWCP 

deems necessary, it shall issue an appropriate decision. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 12, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case remanded for further action 

consistent with this order of the Board. 

Issued: April 4, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board