United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Commack, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1756

Issued: May 22, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On August 19, 2019, appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 1, 2019 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

assigned Docket No. 19-1756.

By notice dated April 1, 2019, OWCP proposed to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits. It found that she no longer had residuals or continuing 

disability from work resulting from the employment injury. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

provide evidence or argument if she contested the proposed termination of her compensation 

benefits. The letter was addressed to appellant’s last known address of record.

The notice of proposed termination was returned by the U.S. Postal Service on April 22, 

2019 as “not deliverable as addressed” and unable to forward. 

 

1 The Board notes that 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

By decision dated July 1, 2019, OWCP finalized the proposed termination of appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits. 

OWCP procedures provide that notice is required prior to termination in all cases where 

benefits are being paid on the periodic rolls and in the case of termination of medical benefits.2 

The Board has held that OWCP must follow its procedures and provide notice and opportunity to

respond prior to the termination of compensation benefits.3

The mailbox rule provides that proper and timely mailing of a document in the ordinary 

course of business raises a rebuttable presumption of receipt by the addressee.4 As a rebuttable 

presumption, receipt will not be presumed. Rather, when there is evidence of nondelivery, the 

presumption may also be rebutted by other evidence that supports that the addressee did not receive 

the correspondence.5

The record in this case contains direct evidence of nondelivery of the April 1, 2019 notice 

of proposed termination.6 Although properly addressed to appellant’s last known address, the U.S. 

Postal Service returned the notice to OWCP as undeliverable and unable to forward. Despite 

receiving the notice as undeliverable, it made no further attempt to reissue the notice of proposed 

termination prior to issuing its finalized termination decision on July 1, 2019. The Board finds 

that the returned envelope constitutes evidence of nondelivery sufficient to overcome the 

presumption of receipt.7 Because appellant had not received the April 1, 2019 notice of proposed 

termination, she was not afforded notice and opportunity to respond prior to the termination of 

compensation benefits.8

As OWCP has not complied with the procedural rights afforded to appellant under its 

regulations and as required by the Board, it is found that OWCP improperly issued its final 

termination decision without proper notice.9 Accordingly,

 

2 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.4b (February 2013); see 

also Winton A. Miller, 52 ECAB 405 (2001).

3 K.S., Docket No. 11-2021 (issued August 21, 2012).

4 L.C., Docket No. 19-0320 (issued July 26, 2019); C.Y., Docket No. 18-0263 (issued September 14, 2018); 

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

5

Id.

6

J.B., Docket No. 17-1164 (issued September 11, 2017).

7 V.R., Docket No. 18-1117 (issued June 20, 2019); M.U., Docket No. 09-0526 (issued September 14, 2009).

8 See S.B., Docket No. 19-0337 (issued February 19, 2020).

9 See L.G., Docket No. 17-0004 (issued April 17, 2017).
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 1, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this 

order of the Board.

Issued: May 22, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board