United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

W.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL 

WEAPONS STATION, Yorktown, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0231

Issued: November 1, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

On November 13, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 21, 2017 decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

docketed the appeal as Docket No. 18-0231.1

On April 28, 2015 appellant, then a 59-year-old material handler inspector, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 27, 2015, she sustained a contusion on 

the right side of her head (eye brow) when she slipped and fell exiting her truck while in the 

performance of duty. She explained that she hit her head on the concrete. Treatment records dated 

April 27, 2015 from an emergency department included a diagnosis of facial contusion. Appellant 

was placed on light duty for the next 10 days to avoid further head trauma. It was anticipated that 

she would resume her regular duties on or after May 6, 2015.

 

1 The Board notes that following the July 21, 2017 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, the 

Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that 

was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board 

for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional 

evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

On June 29, 2015 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) for medical 

treatment only. She alleged that she injured her arm during the April 27, 2015 employment 

incident and required additional medical treatment. Appellant continued to work.

After further development of the case record, OWCP accepted appellant’s traumatic injury 

claim for right-side facial contusion. By decision dated October 22, 2015, it denied her June 29, 

2015 recurrence claim finding that she had not met her burden of proof to establish that her 

diagnosed upper extremity condition was causally related to the accepted April 27, 2015 

employment incident. By decision dated August 2, 2016, a representative of OWCP’s Branch of 

Hearings and Review affirmed the October 22, 2015 decision. By decision dated November 1, 

2016, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision, finding that appellant had not met her 

burden of proof to establish causal relationship between her right shoulder condition and the 

April 27, 2015 employment incident. 

On May 30, 2017 OWCP received a May 22, 2017 narrative report and treatment notes 

from appellant’s treating physician, Dr. Daniel R. Cavazos, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. 

He diagnosed right shoulder impingement and rotator cuff tear with an April 27, 2015 date of 

injury. The treatment notes indicated that appellant was injured coming down from a five-ton 

truck, when she slipped and fell on concrete on her right side. Dr. Cavazos recommended surgery 

and advised that appellant could work with restrictions.

On July 10, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration, utilizing the appeal request form that 

accompanied OWCP’s November 1, 2016 decision.

By decision dated July 21, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that in the case of William A. Couch2

it held that, when adjudicating a claim, OWCP is obligated to consider all evidence properly 

submitted by a claimant and received by it before the final decision is issued. In the instant case, 

OWCP did not specifically address Dr. Cavazos’ May 22, 2017 opinion, which it received after 

the November 1, 2016 merit decision, but prior to appellant’s July 10, 2017 request for 

reconsideration. As the Board’s decisions are final as to the subject matter appealed, it is crucial 

that all evidence relevant to the subject matter of the claim properly submitted to OWCP be 

reviewed and addressed.3 Accordingly,

 

2 41 ECAB 548 (1990).

3 S.M., Docket No. 19-0124 (issued August 1, 2019); T.J., Docket No. 14-1854 (issued February 3, 2015); Yvette N. 

Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004).
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 21, 2017 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further action consistent with 

this order of the Board.

Issued: November 1, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board