United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Seattle, WA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1362

Issued: April 30, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On July 2, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 26, 2020 merit decision of the 

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

docketed the appeal as No. 20-1362.1

On May 22, 2020 appellant, then a 40-year-old rural carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed pain in right side of her back, under the shoulder 

blade and neck due to factors of her federal employment, including repetitive heavy lifting, 

suggesting that it may be due to increase in the volume of work. She noted that she first became 

aware of her condition and its relationship to her federal employment on April 20, 2020. Appellant 

stopped work on May 6, 2020 and returned on May 9, 2020 with restrictions.

In a development letter dated May 26, 2020, 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 attached a questionnaire for her completion. A separate development letter 

 

1 The Board notes that, following the June 26, 2020 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

of even date was sent to the employing establishment requesting information surrounding the 

circumstances of the alleged injury. OWCP afforded both parties 30 days to respond.

In a May 6, 2020 report, Dr. Jessica Bloom, specializing in family medicine, noted that 

appellant was seen for right shoulder pain due to no specific injury. She related that appellant 

performed a significant amount of repetitive heavy lifting at work. Dr. Bloom further indicated 

that while appellant was left handed, she performed more work with her right arm, and her

deliveries had increased because of COVID-19. She noted that appellant complained of pain with 

lifting overhead and reaching into the shoulder, right upper back, and neck, as well as headaches. 

Dr. Bloom diagnosed right shoulder strain.

OWCP received a May 6, 2020 duty status report (Form CA-17) from Dr. Bloom who 

noted that appellant had sustained injury due to repetitive shoulder motion, and prescribed 

restrictions. In another form report dated May 6, 2020, Dr. Bloom related that appellant’s date of

injury was approximately April 15, 2020. She noted work restrictions and that appellant’s right 

shoulder motion was reduced by 15 degrees for external rotation and abduction beyond 90 degrees 

was limited by pain.

OWCP received a May 8, 2020 referral for physical therapy.

In a June 9, 2020 report, Dr. Robert Honey, a Board-certified family practitioner, noted 

that appellant was seen for a follow-up visit due to a right shoulder strain. He recommended 

continued physical therapy and referral to a chiropractor.

On June 25, 2020, OWCP received June 15, 2020 physical therapy notes, which noted that 

appellant’s “symptoms are still primarily exacerbated by work activity, with extensive mail 

delivery going on during the [COVID-19] crisis.”

By decision dated June 26, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. It

noted receipt of a May 8, 2020 medical note and a Form CA-17 dated May 6, 2020. OWCP found 

that appellant had not established fact of injury as the claimed work factors remained unclear.

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,

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.

In its June 26, 2020 decision, OWCP indicated that the evidence received included a 

May 8, 2020 note and a Form CA-17 dated May 6, 2020. However, appellant also submitted 

several May 6, 2020 reports from Dr. Bloom, and June 15, 2020 physical therapy notes which 

reference appellant’s specific work factors. As OWCP did not reference these additional medical

 

2 41 ECAB 548 (1990); see also R.D., Docket No. 17-1818 (issued April 3, 2018).
3

reports, it failed to follow its own procedures which require that all evidence submitted should be 

reviewed and discussed in the decision.3

It is crucial that OWCP reference all relevant evidence received prior to the issuance of its 

decision, as the Board’s decisions are final with regard to the subject matter appealed.4 The Board 

finds that this case is not in posture for decision, as OWCP did not address the above-noted 

evidence in its June 26, 2020 decision.5 On remand, following any further development as deemed 

necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 26, 2020 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: April 30, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board

 

3 All evidence submitted should be reviewed and discussed in the decision. Evidence received following 

development that lacks probative value should also be acknowledged. Whenever possible, the evidence should be 

referenced by author and date. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Denials, Chapter 

2.1401.5(b)(2) (November 2012); A.C., Docket No. 20-0917 (issued January 27, 2021).

4 See D.S., Docket No. 20-0589 (issued November 10, 2020); C.S., Docket No. 18-1760 (issued November 25, 

2019); Yvette N. Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004); see also William A. Couch, supra note 2.

5 M.J., Docket No. 18-0605 (issued April 12, 2019); see V.C., Docket No. 16-0694 (issued August 19, 2016).