United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bonita Springs, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0266

Issued: February 25, 2019

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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

On November 20, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 20, 2017 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Board assigned the 

appeal Docket No. 18-0266.

On May 16, 2017 appellant, then a 56-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 13, 2017 he injured his shoulder while lifting bags 

of food off of mailboxes in the performance of duty. He stopped work on May 15, 2017. The 

Form CA-1 listed appellant’s home mailing address as “15728 Fu... Rd.”

On July 25, 2017 OWCP received a copy of a July 21, 2017 limited-duty assignment. The 

attached cover letter listed appellant’s mailing address as “17528 Fu... Rd.” On July 27, 2017 

OWCP received a July 24, 2017 claim for compensation (Form CA-7), which similarly identified 

appellant’s mailing address as “17528 Fu... Rd.”

In a July 28, 2017 claim development letter, OWCP informed appellant that he had not 

submitted sufficient evidence to support his claim. It noted that he had not submitted sufficient 

evidence to establish that he actually experienced the alleged employment incident. OWCP also 

advised that no diagnosis of a condition resulting from the claimed injury had been provided. The 

letter was addressed to “15728 Fu... Rd.”
2

On August 18, 2017 OWCP’s July 28, 2017 development letter was returned as 

undeliverable.

OWCP subsequently received an October 6, 2017 Form CA-7, which identified appellant’s 

mailing address as “17528 Fu... Rd.”

By decision dated October 20, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim 

because he failed to establish the medical component of fact of injury. It explained that he had not 

submitted medical evidence containing a diagnosis in connection with the injury. OWCP mailed 

the decision to “15728 Fu... Rd.” On October 29, 2017 OWCP’s October 20, 2017 decision was 

returned as undeliverable.

Appellant argues on appeal that he had not been receiving mail from the Department of 

Labor. When inquiring about the status of his Form CA-7, appellant learned that OWCP’s records 

incorrectly identified both his name and address.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that a notice mailed in the ordinary 

course of business was received in due course by the intended recipient.1 This presumption is 

commonly referred to as the “mailbox rule.”

2

 It arises when the record reflects that the notice was 

properly addressed and duly mailed.3

OWCP attempted to notify appellant of the deficiencies in his claim, however, its July 28, 

2017 claim development letter was returned as undeliverable. It was addressed to “15728 Fu... 

Rd,” rather than appellant’s actual address, “17528 Fu... Rd.” The October 20, 2017 decision was 

similarly sent to the wrong address, and it was also returned to OWCP as undeliverable.4 In this 

instance, there is no presumption of receipt arising under the “mailbox rule” given that both of the 

above-referenced documents were returned as undeliverable. Accordingly, the October 20, 2017 

decision shall be set aside, and the case remanded to OWCP in order to provide appellant an 

opportunity to cure the deficiencies in his claim in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 10.121. Following 

this and any other development deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

 

1 Kenneth E. Harris, 54 ECAB 502, 505 (2003).

2

Id.

3

Id.

4 A copy of the decision shall be mailed to the employee’s last known address. 20 C.F.R. § 10.127.
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 20, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside, and the case is remanded for further action.

Issued: February 25, 2019

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