United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MIDDLESEX ESSEX 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

North Reading, MA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0657

Issued: December 15, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

On February 3, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 13, 2020 merit decision 

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

docketed the appeal as No. 20-0657.1

On November 27, 2019 appellant, then a 59-year-old supervisor, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 26, 2019 she sustained swelling to the face and 

lip(s) when she slipped and hit her face on the floor while in the performance of duty. Appellant’s 

supervisor acknowledged on the claim form that the injury occurred in the performance of duty. 

In a December 9, 2019 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical 

evidence needed and requested that she complete and return a factual development questionnaire

 

1 The Board notes that OWCP received additional evidence following the January 13, 2020 decision. 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

in order to provide a detailed description of the alleged employment incident that she believed 

caused her injury. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. 

Appellant completed the factual development questionnaire on January 8, 2020. She 

explained that she had been counting boxes and became caught in a strip that tied bundles of 

magazines, falling to the floor head-first. Appellant claimed that she broke her lips open in the 

fall. She called for help from a coworker and was taken to the hospital via ambulance. The 

immediate effects of appellant’s claimed injury included mouth, neck, and head pain, as well as 

bleeding from the mouth. She also submitted a witness statement from a coworker, L.Y., who 

observed appellant on the floor of the mail storage area with her hand raised and signaling for help. 

L.Y. saw blood on her mouth and on the floor. Stamped markings on the completed questionnaire, 

narrative account, and witness statement indicated a date of receipt by OWCP on January 13, 2020 

at 10:24 a.m.2

By decision dated January 13, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim 

finding that she had not submitted the necessary factual evidence to establish that the 

November 26, 2019 incident occurred at work as described. It found that appellant had not 

provided a description of how the injury occurred and had not provided any factual evidence of an 

injury occurring at work. OWCP also found that appellant had not submitted any medical evidence 

of a diagnosed condition causally related to the alleged incident. Therefore it concluded that she 

had not established fact of injury. There is no indication that appellant’s January 8, 2020 response 

to OWCP’s questionnaire was reviewed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that the case is not in posture for a 

decision. In the case of William A. Couch,

3

the Board held that when adjudicating a claim OWCP 

is obligated to consider all evidence properly submitted by a claimant and received by OWCP 

before the final decision is issued.

In OWCP’s January 13, 2020 decision, it stated that appellant had not provided a 

description of how the injury occurred and had not provided factual evidence of an injury occurring 

at work. Appellant’s January 8, 2020 response to OWCP’s questionnaire was not reviewed.

However, the record reflects that OWCP received appellant’s January 8, 2020 response to its 

factual development questionnaire on January 13, 2020 as demonstrated by the stamps on the 

received documents indicating the date and time of receipt by OWCP.4

It is crucial that OWCP address all evidence received prior to the issuance of its final 

decision, as the Board’s decisions are final with regard to the subject matter appealed.5 Whether

OWCP receives relevant evidence on the date of the decision or several days prior, such evidence 

 

2 This evidence was scanned into OWCP’s Integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS) case 

record on January 16, 2020.

3 41 ECAB 548 (1990); see also R.D., Docket No. 17-1818 (issued April 3, 2018).

4 See I.L., Docket No. 19-0077 (issued July 26, 2019); Linda Johnson, 45 ECAB 439 (1994) (evidence received the 

same day as the issuance of OWCP’s decision, but not previously considered, requires remand for de novo review).

5 See C.S., Docket No. 18-1760 (issued November 25, 2019); Yvette N. Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004); see also 

William A. Couch, 41 ECAB 548, 553 (1990).
3

must be considered.6 The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision, as OWCP did 

not review the above-noted evidence in its January 13, 2020 decision.7 It makes no difference that 

the claims examiner was not directly in possession of the evidence on January 13, 2020, as Board 

precedent envisions evidence received by OWCP, but not yet associated with the case record when 

the final decision is issued.8 As the January 8, 2020 response to OWCP’s factual development 

questionnaire was in OWCP’s possession at the time it issued its January 13, 2020 decision, it 

must be considered by OWCP in weighing the evidence.9 On remand OWCP shall review all 

evidence of record, and following any further development as it deems necessary, it shall issue an 

appropriate de novo decision.10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 13, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded to OWCP for further 

action consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: December 15, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

6 S.M., Docket No. 16-0852 (issued November 1, 2017); Willard McKennon, 51 ECAB 145 (1999).

7 See M.T., Docket No. 20-0757 (issued September 30, 2020).

8 See Yvette N. Davis supra note 5. In Yvette N. Davis the Board explained as follows: “Although the claims 

examiner did not realize that the evidence was in [OWCP’s] possession ... Board precedent requires [OWCP] to 

review all evidence submitted by a claimant and received by [OWCP] prior to the issuance of its final decision, 

including evidence received on the date of the decision. It makes no difference that the claims examiner was not 

directly in possession of the evidence. Indeed, Board precedent envisions evidence received by [OWCP] but not yet 

associated with the case record when the final decision is issued.”

9 See Cheryl P. Beard, Docket No. 02-0786 (issued August 13, 2002).

10 M.T., supra note 7.