United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, LA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0984

Issued: December 27, 2021

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 June 15, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 4, 2021 merit decision of the 

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

docketed the appeal as No. 21-0984.

1

On April 28, 2021 appellant, then a 57-year-old housing management specialist, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 15, 2021 he sustained an injury to his 

right shoulder and clavicle while loading a bookcase into the back of a vehicle while in the 

performance of duty. He did not stop work. Appellant’s supervisor, M.M., acknowledged on the 

claim form that the injury occurred in the performance of duty.

In urgent care discharge notes dated April 17, 2021, Lacy Vincent, a physician assistant,

treated appellant and diagnosed a right shoulder sprain.

1 The Board notes that, following the June 4, 2021 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP.

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 May 3, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of record 

was insufficient to establish his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence 

needed and provided a questionnaire for his completion. In a separate development letter of even 

date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide additional information about the 

alleged employment incident. It afforded both parties 30 days to respond.

On May 10, 2021 the employing establishment responded to OWCP’s development 

questionnaire, indicatingthat moving items such as bookcases was “incidental at times to the duties 

[appellant] performs.”

On June 3, 2021 appellant submitted medical reports dated May 17 and 24, 2021 by

Dr. Aaron Lirette, a Board-certified physician, specializing in occupational medicine. Dr. Lirette

noted appellant’s description of the alleged employment incident and diagnosed sprains of the 

sternoclavicular joint and an unspecified acromioclavicular (AC) joint. In a May 17, 2021 duty 

status report (Form CA-17), he diagnosed AC joint pain, sternoclavicular joint pain and advised

appellant could return to work with restrictions.

By decision dated June 4, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

that he had not submitted the necessary medical evidence. It found that appellant failed to provide 

medical evidence from a physician containing a medical diagnosis in connection with the 

employment incident. Therefore, OWCP concluded that the requirements had not been met to 

establish that he sustained an injury as defined by FECA. 

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

decision. 

In the case of William A. Couch,

2

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. While OWCP is not required to list every piece of evidence 

submitted to the record, there is no indication that Dr. Lirette’s May 17 and 24, 2021 notes were 

reviewed by OWCP in its June 4, 2021 decision.3

As the Board’s decisions are final with regard to the subject matter appealed,

4

it is crucial 

that all evidence relevant to the subject matter of the claim, which was properly submitted to 

OWCP prior to the time of issuance of its final decision be reviewed and addressed by OWCP.

5

 

Because OWCP failed to consider all of the medical evidence submitted by appellant, the Board 

cannot review such evidence for the first time on appeal.

6

 

2

41 ECAB 548 (1990); see also R.D., Docket No. 17-1818 (issued April3, 2018).

3

See T.G., Docket No. 19-1930 (issued January 8, 2021). 

4

See 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).

5

See S.K., Docket No. 18-0478 (issued January 2, 2019);Yvette N. Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004); see also WilliamA. 

Couch, supranote 2.

6

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). See also G.M., Docket No. 16-1766 (issued February 16, 2017),
3

For this reason, the case will be remanded to OWCP to properly consider all of the evidence 

of record.

7

 Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall 

issue a de novo decision.8 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 4, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

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

consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: December 27, 2021

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

7

See M.J., Docket No. 18-0605 (issued April12, 2019).

8 B.N., Docket No. 17-0787 (issued July 6, 2018).