United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Harrisburg, PA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Nos. 18-0757 & 

18-1705

Issued: November 14, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Aaron B. Aumiller, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 21, 2018 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an August 25, 

2017 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).2 The Board 

assigned the appeal Docket No. 18-0757. On August 21, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from 

a March 8, 2018 nonmerit decision of OWCP, which the Board assigned Docket No. 18-1705. 

 

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, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from OWCP’s August 25, 2017 merit decision was Wednesday, 

February 21, 2018. Because using February 26, 2018, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of mailing is considered the date of filing. The U.S. Postal 

Service tracking history reveals that the appeal was mailed February 21, 2018, rendering the appeal timely filed. See

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1).
2

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that she was 

totally disabled for the period April 2 through August 28, 2016, causally related to her accepted 

April 14, 2015 right elbow injury; and (2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s 

December 12, 2017 request for reconsideration of the merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a). 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 30, 2015 appellant, then a 47-year-old laborer custodian, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on April 14, 2015, she sustained right tennis elbow after cutting 

and breaking down cardboard boxes. She stopped work on April 14, 2015, and returned to 

modified employment on April 30, 2015. OWCP accepted the claim for right synovitis and 

tenosynovitis. 

On August 31, 2015 Dr. Matthew J. Espenshade, an osteopath, performed a partial lateral 

epicondylectomy at the right elbow, a debridement and release of the extensor carpi radialis brevis, 

and a repair of the collateral ligament.4 OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation for 

temporary total disability beginning July 20, 2015. 

On November 23, 2015 Dr. Espenshade noted that appellant continued to complain of 

burning and pain on the right side. On examination he found mild swelling on the right with no 

effusion. In a work restriction form, Dr. Espenshade determined that appellant could return to 

modified employment on November 30, 2015 with no use of the affected arm. 

The employing establishment offered appellant the position of modified custodian on 

November 30, 2015. The position required cleaning horizontal and vertical surfaces and rails. The 

physical requirements included no use of the right arm or cleaning overhead. Appellant accepted 

the offered position.

On December 21, 2015 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) requesting 

wage-loss compensation from November 28 to December 11, 2015. The employing establishment 

advised that she had refused a November 30, 2015 job offer.

In a January 5, 2016 progress report, Dr. Espenshade noted that appellant advised that her 

right elbow pain had not improved with surgery. He related, “[Appellant] is also complaining of 

left elbow pain since she went back to work on light duty and she states [that] they made her use 

her left elbow more.” Dr. Espenshade diagnosed status after a right elbow partial lateral 

 

3 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4 OWCP, on August 13, 2015, referred appellant to Dr. Robert R. Draper, Jr., a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

for a second opinion examination. In a report dated September 21, 2015, Dr. Draper noted that she had recently 

undergone right elbow surgery and was unable to return to work. He estimated that appellant could perform lightduty employment in approximately six weeks.
3

epicondylectomy, debridement, and collateral repair and recommended diagnostic testing. He 

opined that appellant’s subjective complaints outweighed the objective findings.

On January 25, 2016 Dr. Michael Darowish, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

evaluated appellant for right lateral elbow pain due to a “work-related claim.” He diagnosed 

persistent pain in the right lateral elbow after a lateral epicondylectomy and opined that she might 

have a “latrogenic injury to the lateral ulnar collateral ligament....” Dr. Darowish also diagnosed 

carpal and radial tunnel syndrome and internal impingement of the shoulder.

A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan study of the right elbow, obtained on 

January 27, 2017, revealed an “[a]bnormal appearance of the common extensor tendon origin upon 

the lateral epicondyle with abnormal fluid signal interposed between the tendon and the adjacent 

epicondyle and some proximal thickening.” 

On January 29, 2016 the employing establishment advised that appellant had not returned 

to work. 

OWCP, on February 1, 2016, notified appellant of its proposed termination of her wageloss compensation under 20 C.F.R. § 10.500(a) as she declined to accept an offered position within 

her work restrictions. It provided her 30 days to report to the assigned position or show that her 

refusal was justified.

In a February 8, 2016 progress report, Dr. Darowish advised that the MRI scan study 

showed detachment of the lateral ulnar collateral ligament from the humeral insertion. He 

recommended a radial nerve compression and lateral ulnar collateral ligament repair, noting that 

it was a “relatively extensive surgery” with a long recovery. Dr. Darowish opined that appellant 

could work with restrictions of lifting, pushing, and pulling up to one pound with her right hand 

and performing no repetitive activities pending surgery.

Dr. Espenshade, on February 9, 2016, indicated that the MRI scan study showed a 

questionable retear that he did not believe was significant. He advised that he had released 

appellant to resume work using only her left hand, but she did not return, noting that she “states 

she still would not be able to do that type of job just using her left hand.” Dr. Espenshade 

diagnosed right elbow pain, right elbow radial neuritis, and status post right lateral debridement 

and release. He found that appellant could continue working with limited-duty restrictions. 

By decision dated March 28, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation beginning November 30, 2015 under section 10.500(a) as she failed to accept a

November 30, 2015 modified-duty assignment within her restrictions. It noted that the offered 

position was within the work restrictions set forth by Dr. Espenshade. OWCP informed appellant 

that if the employing establishment withdrew the limited-duty position or if her condition 

worsened such that she was unable to perform the assignment, she could file a notice of recurrence 

of disability.
4

On March 30, 2016 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before an OWCP 

hearing representative.5 

Dr. Darowish, on March 16, 2016, performed a right radial tunnel decompression and right 

lateral ulnar collateral ligament repair. OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation for 

temporary total disability from March 16 to April 1, 2016. 

In return to work forms dated May 3 and June 28, 2016, Dr. Darowish found that appellant 

was unable to work. 

Dr. Darowish, in an August 23, 2016 report, noted that appellant was doing well after a 

right radial tunnel decompression and right elbow lateral collateral repair, but had some continued 

numbness and tingling in the radial nerve and right hand, and bilateral wrist pain. He diagnosed 

status post right radial tunnel decompression, right hand numbness at night that he believed was 

carpal tunnel syndrome, and bilateral wrist pain that he believed was de Quervain’s tenosynovitis. 

In an August 23, 2016 return to work form, Dr. Darowish opined that appellant could resume 

sedentary work lifting, pushing, and pulling not more than one pound with the right hand, and 

performing no repetitive activities with the right upper extremity. 

Appellant, on August 29, 2016, accepted a modified laborer custodial position with the 

employing establishment. 

On September 21, 2016 appellant filed a notice of recurrence of disability (Form CA-2a) 

on November 30, 2015 causally related to her April 14, 2015 employment injury. She advised that 

she had stopped work on November 30, 2015 and returned to work on August 29, 2016. The

employing establishment indicated that appellant went home on November 30, 2015 stating that 

she could not perform an offered light-duty position. 

OWCP, on September 28, 2016, notified appellant of the definition of a recurrence of 

disability and requested that she submit a reasoned report from her physician explaining the causal 

relationship between any disability and the accepted work injury. 

Following an October 25, 2016 telephone hearing, by decision dated December 12, 2016,

an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the March 28, 2016 decision terminating appellant’s 

compensation under section 10.500(a). He noted that she stopped work on November 30, 2015 

after for less than two hours. The hearing representative further indicated that OWCP paid 

appellant wage-loss compensation from March 16 to April 1, 2016. He found that the March 28, 

2016 sanction decision pertained only to disability compensation from November 30, 2015 to 

March 15, 2016, and that compensation for wage loss subsequent to that date should be separately 

adjudicated.

In a report dated October 25, 2016, Dr. Darowish diagnosed bilateral de Quervain’s 

tenosynovitis and possible cubital tunnel syndrome. He indicated that appellant could work lifting, 

 

5

In a March 8, 2016 progress report, Dr. Darowish noted that he had scheduled appellant for surgery on 

March 16, 2016. 
5

pushing, and pulling no more than two pounds with the right hand and performing no repetitive 

work duties with her right hand. 

By decision dated December 16, 2016, OWCP found that appellant had not established a 

recurrence of disability beginning November 30, 2015 causally related to her accepted 

employment injury. It noted that it had previously found that she stopped work after refusing a 

suitable, limited-duty position. OWCP determined that appellant sought treatment from

Dr. Darowish without prior authorization.

Appellant, through counsel, on December 27, 2016 requested an oral hearing on the 

December 16, 2016 decision before an OWCP hearing representative. At the telephone hearing, 

held on June 12, 2017, he asserted that her initial surgery by Dr. Espenshade was unsuccessful, 

but that Dr. Darowish subsequently operated on her right elbow on March 16, 2016 and confirmed 

that she had a torn ligament. Counsel noted that following the repair appellant improved and 

returned to work. Appellant related that she had returned to modified work on August 29, 2016 

and to her usual employment in March 2017. 

OWCP thereafter received a December 8, 2016 report from Dr. Darowish. Dr. Darowish 

discussed his treatment of appellant beginning January 2016. He related that a January 27, 2016 

MRI scan study showed that the lateral ulnar collateral ligament was detached from the humeral

insertion and that surgery performed March 16, 2016 confirmed “obvious detachment” and 

compression of the radical nerve showing radial tunnel syndrome. Dr. Darowish advised that 

reviewing the MRI scan study obtained prior to Dr. Espenshade’s surgery showed similar findings 

to the January 27, 2016 MRI scan study. He related that appellant currently had de Quervain’s 

tenosynovitis, which was “a separate issue from her initial elbow complaints.” Dr. Darowish 

indicated that the relevant diagnoses were right lateral epicondylitis, right lateral ulnar collateral 

ligament detachment, and right radial tunnel syndrome. He advised that the detachment of the 

lateral ulnar collateral ligament could be the result of a traumatic event, but found that appellant

had not experienced such an event. Dr. Darowish attributed the condition to degeneration of the 

lateral epicondyle from the lateral epicondylitis. He explained the process of micro tears causing 

degeneration and advised, “This degenerative material is not as strong as usual tendon, and so the 

[individual] continues to perform activities where the wrist is extended, as would be part of 

[appellant’s] job activities as a postal carrier, the degenerative material is more likely to re-micro 

tear.” Dr. Darowish opined that as the degeneration grew it affected the insertion of the lateral 

ulnar collateral ligament and extensor carpi radialis brevis.

By decision dated August 25, 2017, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

December 16, 2016 decision. She noted that OWCP had previously denied appellant’s request for 

wage-loss compensation through March 15, 2016. The hearing representative noted that appellant

underwent additional surgery on March 16, 2016, but found that she had not submitted sufficient 

medical evidence showing that she was unable to perform the limited-duty assignment due to her 

employment injury. 

On December 12, 2017 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the 

December 12, 2016 decision finding that she was not entitled to wage-loss compensation 

beginning November 30, 2015 pursuant to section 10.500(a). 

On February 21, 2018 appellant appealed the August 25, 2017 decision to the Board.
6

By decision dated March 8, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

under section 8128(a) after finding that she had not raised a legal argument or submitted evidence 

sufficient to warrant reopening her case for further merit review. It determined that she had 

requested reconsideration of its August 25, 2017 decision rather than the December 12, 2016 

decision.

On appeal, counsel argues that appellant’s condition worsened after the August 31, 2015 

surgery by Dr. Espenshade and that a January 27, 2016 MRI scan study revealed detachment of 

the lateral ulnar collateral ligament from the humeral insertion. He maintains that Dr. Darowish 

explained the relationship of appellant’s condition to her work injury and that his opinion 

constitutes the weight of the evidence. Counsel also asserts that OWCP erred in failing to properly 

consider his December 12, 2017 request for reconsideration of the December 12, 2016 decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

Where an employee, who is disabled from the job he or she held when injured on account 

of employment-related residuals, returns to a light-duty position or the medical evidence 

establishes that the employee can perform the light-duty position, the employee has the burden of 

proof to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, a recurrence 

of total disability and to show that he or she cannot perform such light duty. As part of this burden, 

the employee must show a change in the nature and extent of the injury-related condition or a 

change in the nature and extent of the light-duty job requirements.6

OWCP regulations provide that a recurrence of disability means an inability to work after 

an employee has returned to work, caused by a spontaneous change in a medical condition which 

had resulted from a previous injury or illness without an intervening injury or new exposure to the 

work environment that caused the illness.7 This term also means an inability to work that takes 

place when a light-duty assignment made specifically to accommodate an employee’s physical 

limitations due to his or her work-related injury or illness is withdrawn, (except when such 

withdrawal occurs for reasons of misconduct, nonperformance of job duties or a reduction-inforce) or when the physical requirements of such an assignment are altered so that they exceed his 

or her established physical limitations.8

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained right synovitis and tenosynovitis due to an 

April 14, 2015 employment injury. It paid her wage-loss compensation for total disability 

beginning July 20, 2015. On August 31, 2015 Dr. Espenshade performed surgery on appellant’s 

right elbow. Subsequent to the surgery, he found that she could return to limited-duty employment 

on November 30, 2015 without use of her right upper extremity. The employing establishment 

offered appellant a modified position effective November 30, 2015 within the restrictions set forth 

by Dr. Espenshade, but she did not return to work. By decision dated March 28, 2016, OWCP 

 

6 Richard A. Neidert, 57 ECAB 474 (2006); Jackie D. West, 54 ECAB 158 (2002); Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 

222 (1986).

7 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x).

8

Id.
7

found that she was not entitled to compensation beginning November 30, 2015 under section 

10.500(a) as she refused to accept modified employment within her restrictions. In a decision 

dated December 12, 2016, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the March 28, 2016 decision. 

He specified that the issue was appellant’s entitlement to wage-loss compensation from 

November 30, 2015 to March 15, 2016, noting that OWCP had paid her compensation from 

March 16 to April 1, 2016 following a second elbow surgery.

In September 2016, appellant filed a notice of recurrence of disability beginning 

November 30, 2015 causally related to her April 14, 2015 employment injury. As noted, however, 

OWCP previously adjudicated the issue of whether she was entitled to wage-loss compensation 

from November 30 to March 15, 2016 and found that she was not entitled to wage-loss 

compensation as she had refused an offer of suitable modified employment under section 

10.500(a). It paid appellant wage-loss compensation from March 16 to April 1, 2016. Appellant 

returned to work effective August 29, 2016. The issue, consequently, is whether she has 

established that she was disabled from employment for the period April 2 through August 28, 

2016, causally related to her accepted April 14, 2015 right elbow injury.

Appellant has not alleged that the employing establishment withdrew the offered limitedduty position. Instead, she attributed her recurrence of disability to a change in the nature and 

extent of her employment-related conditions. Appellant must provide medical evidence to 

establish that she was disabled due to a worsening of her accepted work-related conditions of right 

synovitis and tenosynovitis.9 

On February 8, 2016 Dr. Darowish advised that the MRI scan study he reviewed showed 

detachment of the lateral ulnar collateral ligament from the humeral insertion and recommended 

surgery. He determined that appellant could work with restrictions of lifting, pushing, and pulling 

with her right hand up to one pound pending surgery. Dr. Darowish noted that after surgery she 

would have an extended recovery period. He did not, however, specifically address causation or 

attribute the need for surgery to the accepted work injury. Consequently, Dr. Darowish’s report is

of diminished probative value.10

In a report dated February 9, 2016, Dr. Espenshade advised that the MRI scan study 

showed a possible retear that he did not believe was significant and found that appellant could 

continue working with restrictions.

On March 16, 2016 Dr. Darowish performed a right radial tunnel decompression and repair 

of the lateral ulnar collateral ligament. In May 3 and June 28, 2016 return to work forms, he 

indicated that appellant was unable to work. Dr. Darowish, however, did not address the cause of 

her disability. Medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an 

employee’s condition lacks probative value on the issue of causal relationship.11

Dr. Darowish, in an August 23, 2016 report, diagnosed status right radial tunnel 

decompression and possible carpal tunnel syndrome and de Quervain’s tenosynovitis. He found 

 

9 See Jackie D. West, supra note 6.

10 See J.S., Docket No. 18-0020 (issued August 8, 2018).

11 See S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009).
8

that appellant was doing well following her right elbow lateral collateral repair and radial tunnel 

decompression and could resume sedentary work on August 29, 2016 lifting, pushing, and pulling 

no more than one pound with the right side and performing no repetitive activities with the right 

upper extremity. Appellant resumed work on August 29, 2016 within Dr. Darowish’s work 

restrictions. Again, Dr. Darowish did not relate her need for surgery and resulting disability to the 

April 14, 2015 employment injury and thus his opinion is of diminished probative value.12

On October 25, 2016 Dr. Darowish diagnosed bilateral de Quervain’s tenosynovitis and 

possible cubital tunnel syndrome. He provided work restrictions. As Dr. Darowish did not address 

the relevant issue of disability from April 2 to August 28, 2016, his report is insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof.13

In a December 8, 2016 report, Dr. Darowish advised that the January 27, 2016 MRI scan 

study showed detachment of the lateral ulnar collateral ligament from the humeral insertion and 

that this finding was confirmed by the March 16, 2016 surgery. He diagnosed right lateral 

epicondylitis, right lateral ulnar collateral ligament detachment, and right radial tunnel syndrome. 

Dr. Darowish indicated that appellant had not experienced a traumatic event that would cause the 

detachment of the lateral ulnar collateral ligament. He attributed the condition to degeneration 

result from micro tears which he attributed to her work duties as a mail carrier. Appellant, 

however, worked as a laborer/custodian and attributed her condition to cutting and breaking down 

cardboard boxes. Dr. Darowish, consequently, relied upon an inaccurate history of injury. 

Medical opinions based on an incomplete or inaccurate history of injury are of little probative 

value.14 Further, OWCP has not accepted the detachment of the lateral ulnar collateral ligament 

as employment related. Where appellant claims that, a condition not accepted or approved by 

OWCP was due to her employment injury, she bears the burden of proof to establish that the 

condition is causally related to the employment injury through the submission of rationalized 

medical evidence.15 Dr. Darowish did not explain how the diagnosed condition resulted from the 

identified work factor of breaking down cardboard boxes. Medical conclusions unsupported by 

rationale are of little probative value.16

On appeal, counsel contends that reports from Dr. Darowish are rationalized and constitute 

the weight of the evidence. As noted, however, he did not provide a reasoned opinion on causation 

supported by a complete and accurate factual history and thus his opinion is of diminished 

probative value.

 

12 Id.

13 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); C.H., Docket No. 17-1239 (issued November 20, 2017) 

(the Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of any medical evidence directly 

addressing the specific date of disability for which compensation is claimed).

14 See T.F., Docket No. 17-0645 (issued August 15, 2018).

15 JaJa K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200, 204 (2004).

16 Willa M. Frazier, 55 ECAB 379 (2004); Jimmy H. Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001).
9

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Section 8128(a) of FECA does not entitle a claimant to review of an OWCP decision as a 

matter of right.17 OWCP has discretionary authority in this regard and has imposed certain 

limitations in exercising its authority.18 One such limitation is that the request for reconsideration 

must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of the decision for which review is sought.19 

A timely application for reconsideration, including all supporting documents, must set forth 

arguments and contain evidence that either: (1) shows that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advances a relevant legal argument not previously 

considered by OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously 

considered by OWCP.20 When a timely application for reconsideration does not meet at least one 

of the above-noted requirements, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for a review on the merits.21

The Board and OWCP may not simultaneously exercise jurisdiction over the same 

issue(s).22

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP improperly issued its March 8, 2018 nonmerit decision. On 

December 12, 2017 counsel timely requested reconsideration of OWCP’s December 12, 2016 

merit decision.23 However, OWCP mistakenly considered it as a request for reconsideration of its 

August 25, 2017 merit decision. The two decisions address separate and distinct periods of 

entitlement to wage-loss compensation. Because OWCP did not properly consider appellant’s 

request for reconsideration of the December 12, 2016 decision, the Board finds that the March 8, 

2018 nonmerit decision was improperly issued. Moreover, it lacked jurisdiction over the 

August 25, 2017 decision because counsel requested review of that decision by the Board. As 

 

17 This section provides in pertinent part: “[t]he Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against payment 

of compensation at any time on [his/her] own motion or on application.” 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

18 20 C.F.R. § 10.607.

19 Id. at § 10.607(a). For merit decisions issued on or after August 29, 2011, a request for reconsideration must be 

received by OWCP within one year of the OWCP decision for which review is sought. Federal (FECA) Procedure 

Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 (February 2016). Timeliness is determined by the 

document receipt date of the request for reconsideration as indicated by the “received date” in the Integrated Federal 

Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS). Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4b.

20 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).

21 Id. at § 10.608(a), (b).

22 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c)(3), 10.626; see, e.g., Lawrence Sherman, 55 ECAB 359, 360 n.4 (2004).

23 See supra note 19.
10

noted, the Board and OWCP may not simultaneously exercise jurisdiction over the same issue.24 

Consequently, OWCP’s March 8, 2018 decision denying further merit review of the August 25, 

2017 decision shall be set aside as null and void.25

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not established that she was totally disabled for the 

period April 2 through August 28, 2016 due to her accepted April 14, 2015 right elbow injury.

The Board further finds that OWCP’s March 8, 2018 nonmerit decision is null and void.

26

 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 25, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. The Board further finds that OWCP’s March 8, 

2018 decision is set aside as null and void.

Issued: November 14, 2018

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

 

24 See supra note 22.

25 See J.D., Docket No. 17-0143 (issued July 20, 2017); Douglas E. Billings, 41 ECAB 880 (1990).

26 As such, counsel’s December 12, 2017 request for reconsideration of OWCP’s December 12, 2016 merit decision 

is still pending before OWCP.