United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.P., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Fort Worth, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0253 

Issued: March 23, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 24, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a September 30, 2015 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty on August 7, 2015. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 20, 2015 appellant, a city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) reporting that at 2:15 a.m. on August 7, 2015, he suffered tightness in his chest, 

difficulty breathing, and numbness and tingling in his fingers. He stopped work on August 8, 

2015 and returned to work, full duty, August 31, 2015. The employing establishment 

controverted appellant’s claim asserting that, while the incident occurred in the performance of 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

duty, causal relationship had not been established between the incident and the claimed medical 

conditions. In a letter dated August 20, 2015, it noted that neither fact of injury, nor causal 

relationship had been established. 

On August 25, 2015 OWCP sent appellant a development letter with an attached 

questionnaire requesting a detailed description of the alleged incident. Appellant was provided 

30 days to submit the requested information. 

Appellant’s completed questionnaire was received by OWCP on September 15, 

and 29, 2015. He noted that the time of the alleged incident was 2:15 p.m. to 2:15 a.m. 

Appellant stated that the employing establishment had prepared the claim form, which he signed 

without reading it carefully. He provided the number of the route he was delivering and the 

street where he was when his symptoms began. Appellant reported that he was exposed to 

temperatures at just over one hundred degrees. His condition worsened during the course of his 

route until he “could hardly breath[e].” Appellant reported that he sent text messages to his 

managers. He provided the supervisor’s names along with copies of the text messages from his 

phone. Appellant stated that his managers called an ambulance. Firefighters provided him with 

assistance and he was taken by ambulance to the JPS Hospital emergency center. Appellant 

reported that he followed up with his personal physician. 

Appellant submitted a number of medical reports to the record. 

In a decision dated September 30, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for benefits as 

he failed to establish the factual component of his claim, i.e., that he “actually experienced the 

employment incident(s) alleged to have occurred.” The text of OWCP’s decision states that his 

failure to respond to the August 25, 2015 questionnaire was the reason the claim was denied. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

FECA provides that OWCP shall determine and make findings of fact in making an 

award for or against payment of compensation after considering the claim presented by the 

employee and after completing such investigation as OWCP considers necessary with respect to 

the claim. Since the Board’s jurisdiction in a case is limited to reviewing that evidence which 

was before OWCP at the time of its final decision, it is necessary that OWCP review all evidence 

submitted by a claimant and received by OWCP prior to the issuance of its final decision. As the 

Board’s decisions are final as to the subject matter appealed, it is crucial that all evidence 

relevant to that subject matter, which was properly submitted to OWCP prior to the issuance of 

the final decision, be addressed by OWCP.2

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that this claim is not in posture for decision. The record of evidence 

clearly establishes that OWCP did not evaluate appellant’s statement describing his incident on 

August 7, 2015 prior to its denial of his claim. The decision below expressly notes that appellant 

had not responded to the case development questionnaire that OWCP had mailed to him on 

 2 William A. Couch 41 ECAB 548 (1990). 
3

August 25, 2015. The decision further notes that without this information about appellant’s 

incident OWCP was unable to determine that any compensable incident occurred. 

It is clear that appellant’s response, received by OWCP on September 15, 2015 and again 

on September 29, 2015 was not reviewed or considered by OWCP before it issued its 

September 30, 2015 decision denying appellant’s claim. The Board has held that evidence 

received by OWCP before it issues its decision must be reviewed and considered.3

 OWCP must 

review appellant’s statement describing his incident to determine whether appellant has 

established fact of injury in his claim. Following this and any necessary further development, 

OWCP shall issue a de novo decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision. 

 3 Yvette N. Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004). (The claims examiner wrote to claimant to explain that additional 

evidence had been received in OWCP’s central mail facility in London, Kentucky on June 16, 2003 but that he 

worked in New York City, NY and had issued his decision on that date without knowing of the additional evidence. 

He explained that the evidence became available to him only on June 18, 2003. The Board held that possession by 

OWCP of properly submitted evidence required consideration of that evidence by OWCP); Linda Johnson, 45 

ECAB 439 (1994). (The Board set aside OWCP’s decision and remanded the case where OWCP did not review and 

consider a medical report it received the same day the decision denying appellant’s claim was issued.) 
4

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated September 30, 2015 is set aside and the case remanded to OWCP 

for further action consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: March 23, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board