United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Baker, LA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0057 

Issued: February 14, 2017 

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 October 17, 2016 appellant filed an appeal of a September 2, 2016 decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The appeal was docketed as 

No. 17-0057. 

On a prior appeal, the Board remanded the case to OWCP.1

 The Board noted that “the 

evidence of record clearly indicated that an employment incident occurred on January 15, 2013.” 

The question was the specific details of the incident. Appellant had reported that she had picked 

up a tray of mail, began dropping it and both she and the mail fell to the ground. In later 

statements she alleged that she did not fall, but stumbled backward. Appellant’s supervisor was 

a witness to the incident and reported that appellant did not pick up a tray of mail, but it was 

handed to appellant and the supervisor never let go of the tray. The supervisor indicated that the 

tray slowly went to the ground and appellant then backed away. 

The case was remanded to OWCP to properly make findings the specific details of the 

January 15, 2013 employment incident. Then the medical evidence of record could properly be 

reviewed to determine if appellant had established an injury causally related to the employment 

injury. 

The September 2, 2016 OWCP decision fails to make the necessary findings as directed 

by the Board. OWCP finds that the supervisor’s statement is more credible, but then OWCP 

 1

 Docket No. 15-1781 (issued December 21, 2015). 
2

holds that an incident is not established, and there is no review of the medical evidence. The 

proper analysis, as the Board explained, would be to accept that a January 15, 2013 incident had 

occurred as described in the witness statement, and then review the medical evidence. A finding 

that no incident is established would be proper when there are such inconsistencies in the 

evidence that it is not clear what occurred at work.2

 If it is not clear what happened, there is no 

way to assess whether a medical report had an accurate history of injury.3 In this case the only 

question was precisely how appellant had handled the tray of mail. By finding that the 

supervisor’s description of the incident was more credible, OWCP has found that a January 15, 

2013 incident occurred as described by the supervisor. 

It is a well-established principle that OWCP must make proper findings of fact and a 

statement of reasons in its final decisions.4 The case will be remanded to OWCP to properly 

make a finding that a January 15, 2013 incident occurred, and review the medical evidence to 

determine if an injury causally related to the January 15, 2013 employment incident was 

established. After such further development as is deemed necessary, it should issue an 

appropriate decision.

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

Compensation Programs dated September 2, 2016 is set aside and the case remanded for further 

action consistent with this order of the Board. 

Issued: February 14, 2017

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 2 See, e.g., D.L., Docket No. 13-0974 (issued August 14, 2013); Clarice J. Sanchez, Docket No. 05-0379 (issued 

September 13, 2005). 

3

 A medical report must have an accurate history of the employment incident. See D.T., Docket No. 14-2024 

(issued June 24, 2015). 

4 See Arietta K. Cooper, 5 ECAB 11 (1952); 20 C.F.R. § 10.126.