United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Coppell, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1753 

Issued: April 3, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Debra Hauser, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

On August 7, 20152 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a February 9, 

2015 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The appeal 

was docketed as No. 15-1753. 

 The Board, having duly considered the matter, concludes that the case is not in posture 

for decision. In this regard, the Board finds that the factual record is incomplete and requires 

 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

 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, the 180-day time period for determining jurisdiction is computed 

beginning on the day following the date of OWCP’s decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(2). One hundred and eighty 

days from February 9, 2015 was August 8, 2015. As this fell on a Saturday, the appeal would have been due the 

following business day which was Monday, August 10, 2015. Since using August 18, 2015, the date the appeal was 

received by the Clerk of the Board, would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the postmark is considered 

the date of filing. The date of the U.S. Postal Service postmark is August 7, 2015, which renders the appeal timely 

filed. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1). 
2

further development by OWCP. It is well established that proceedings under the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act3

 (FECA) are not adversarial in nature and that while the claimant 

has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares responsibility in 

the development of the evidence. OWCP has an obligation to see that justice is done.4

 In a case 

where it “proceeds to develop the evidence and to procure evidence, it must do so in a fair and 

impartial manner.”5

 On remand, OWCP should obtain additional evidence from the employing 

establishment including a position description of the date-of-injury position and position 

descriptions of any light-duty positions offered appellant. It should also obtain from the 

employing establishment payroll, attendance, and disability payment records setting forth 

appellant’s dates of work, disability payments, and status of employment with respect to the time 

period in question. OWCP should request that the employing establishment provide all evidence 

forming the basis for the April 2013 termination of employment as well as an explanation of the 

September 3, 2013 notification of personnel action (SF-50) which indicated that it was effective 

April 26, 2013 and that appellant had been separated in error. The type of information being 

sought is normally within the custody of the employing establishment and not readily available 

to appellant. 

Section 501.2(c) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure,

6

 provides that the Board has 

jurisdiction “to consider and decide appeals from the final decision of OWCP in any case arising 

under [FECA].” Since the record as transmitted to the Board does not contain evidence 

necessary to determine appellant’s work status during the period of total disability claimed, the 

Board is unable to properly consider and decide appellant’s claim. The Board therefore finds 

that the February 9, 2015 decision must be set aside and the case remanded to OWCP for further 

development of the factual record. Following this and such further development as OWCP 

deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision. Accordingly, 

 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

4 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354, 358-60 (1989). 

5 Walter A. Fundinger, Jr., 37 ECAB 200, 204 (1985). 

6

 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c). 
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the February 9, 2015 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: April 3, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board