United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GEORGE 

WASHINGTON MEMORIAL PARK, 

McLean, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-0912

Issued: January 23, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

On March 20, 2017 appellant filed a timely application for review from a September 20, 

2016 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying her 

request for reconsideration. The Board docketed the appeal as No. 17-0912. 

On July 30, 2011 appellant, then a 30-year-old park ranger, sustained a tibia/fibula 

fracture of the right leg and ankle when she slipped on a rock next to the Potomac River while 

trying to remove a visitor from an off-limit location. She stopped work on July 31, 2011. 

OWCP accepted the claim for closed fracture of the medial malleolus of the right ankle and 

authorized right ankle surgery which was performed on January 16, 2012. On October 15, 2015 

appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). She did not submit any additional 

evidence. In a January 14, 2016 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule award 

as the evidence of record was insufficient to establish any permanent impairment to a scheduled 

member or function of the body. 

On April 7, 2016 OWCP received an October 27, 2015 report from Richard A. Banton, a 

physical therapist, who diagnosed bilateral malleolar fractures and referenced a functional 

capacity evaluation addendum. In an appeal request form received September 12, 2016,

appellant requested reconsideration. In a September 20, 2016 decision, OWCP denied further 
2

merit review of the claim. It found that her request for reconsideration neither raised substantive 

legal questions nor included new and relevant evidence.

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.3

In its September 20, 2016 decision, OWCP did not discharge its responsibility to provide 

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

decision as well as the precise defect. The Board notes that OWCP denied appellant’s 

September 12, 2016 request for reconsideration because it failed to raise substantive legal 

questions or include new and relevant evidence, but OWCP failed to provide any discussion of 

the evidence she submitted in support of her reconsideration request or to explain how the 

evidence was insufficient to warrant a merit review of her 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 of the denial of her claim for a schedule award or why she is not entitled to 

further reconsideration. Following this and such further development as OWCP deems 

necessary, it shall issue an appropriate decision.

 

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. 09-0956 (issued April 15, 2010).

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

also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, id. at Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1600.7(b) (October 2011) (if the 

evidence submitted is not sufficient to require a merit review, OWCP should issue a decision which discusses the 

evidence submitted, or lack thereof, and explicitly state the basis for the finding of insufficiency).
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 20, 2016 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.4

Issued: January 23, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

4 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge, participated in the preparation of this order, but was no longer a member of the 

Board effective December 11, 2017.