United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Nampa, ID, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1533

Issued: April 30, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 10, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 11, 2019 nonmerit decision 

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

docketed the appeal as No. 19-1533.

1

On January 5, 2013 appellant, then a 50-year old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 31, 2012 she sustained a concussion and 

bruises to her right hip and buttocks when she slipped on ice and fell while in the performance of 

duty. She stopped work on January 5, 2013 and returned to work on January 7, 2013. In an 

April 18, 2013 decision, OWCP accepted the claim for contusion of the hip and thigh, right. On 

April 27, 2016 it expanded acceptance of the claim to include lumbar sprain (resolved) and low 

back contusion (resolved).

 

1 The Board notesthat appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. 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 a July 6, 2017 decision, OWCP terminated appellant’s medical benefits effective 

July 7, 2017. It found that the weight of the medical evidence established that appellant no longer 

had any remaining residuals of the accepted work-related medical conditions as a result of the 

December 31, 2012 employment injury.

On January 10, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration. She also submitted medical

evidence, consisting of a partial report from Dr. Edwin M. Clark, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, previously received by OWCP on September 18, 2013, a December 31, 2013 report from

Dr. Paul J. Montelbano, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, reports dated July 1 and August 13, 2013,

and June 2, 2014 from Dr. Howard D. Shoemaker, Board-certified in occupational medicine, and 

reports dated October 23, 2014, October 21, 2015, and April 20, 2018 from Dr. Christian G. 

Gussner, Board-certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation. 

By decision dated January 11, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

of the merits of its July 6, 2017 decision. It found the request was untimely filed and failed to 

demonstrate clear evidence of error.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, concludes that the case is not in posture for 

decision.2 Section 8124(a) of FECA provides that OWCP shall determine and make a finding of 

fact and make an award for or against payment of compensation.3 Its regulation at 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.126 provides that the decision of the Director of OWCP shall contain findings of fact and a 

statement of reasons. As well, OWCP’s procedures provide that the reasoning behind OWCP’s

evaluation should be clear enough for the reader to understand the precise defect of the claim and 

the kind of evidence which would overcome it.4

The Board finds that OWCP, in its January 11, 2019 decision, did not discharge its 

responsibility to set forth findings of fact and a clear statement of reasons explaining the 

disposition so that appellant could understand the basis for the decision.5 OWCP did not make 

any findings regarding the evidence submitted in support of the reconsideration request.6 It

summarily denied appellant’s request for reconsideration without complying with the review 

requirements of FECA and its implementing regulations.7 OWCP stated that “the basis for this 

decision is,” but did not complete the sentence. OWCP’s failure to provide factual findings and 

explain the basis for its conclusion that appellant did not demonstrate clear evidence of error 

precludes the Board’s review of the decision.8

 

2

S.H., Docket No. 19-0482 (issued January 6, 2020).

3

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).

4 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5 (February 2013).

5

20 C. F.R. § 10.126; D.W., Docket No. 18-0483 (issued March 7, 2019).

6 C.R., Docket No. 17-0964 (issued September 9, 2019).

7

Supra note 6. 

8

Id.
3

The Board will set aside OWCP’s the January 11, 2019 decision and remand the case for 

an appropriate decision on appellant’s untimely reconsideration request.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 11, 2019 decision of the Office of 

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

this decision of the Board.

Issued: April 30, 2020

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board