United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SAINT PETER POST 

OFFICE, Saint Peter, MN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0360

Issued: August 26, 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 January 5, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 1, 2020 merit decision 

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

assigned Docket No. 21-0360.1

On February 11, 2019 appellant, then a 62-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 9, 2019 she sprained her left shoulder after falling 

while attempting to deliver mail while in the performance of duty. She did not stop work.) On 

March 11, 2019 OWCP accepted the claim for sprain of the left sternoclavicular joint. On May 8, 

2020 it expanded acceptance of the claim to include left proximal clavicle fracture.

OWCP subsequently received an April 30, 2020 letter from appellant who requested 

authorization for an injection for her left shoulder.

 

1 The Board notes that, following the December 1, 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

By letter dated July 13, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for authorization for drain 

and injection of the joint/bursa, finding that the evidence of record did not support that it was 

medically necessary to treat the effects of her accepted employment-related conditions.

In an August 10, 2020 report, Dr. Scott Stevens, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

noted that appellant likely had preexisting chondromalacia, which was likely caused in part by her 

repetitive work activities. He requested a repeat glenohumeral injection to treat appellant’s 

conditions.

In a letter to Dr. Stevens dated October 26, 2020, OWCP indicated that additional 

information was necessary regarding the request for authorization for an injection for appellant’s 

left shoulder. It requested that Dr. Stevens provide medical finding and diagnostic test results 

supporting a diagnosis of chondromalacia. OWCP further requested a well-reasoned medical 

explanation of how the accepted employment injury aggravated her preexisting chondromalacia.

OWCP subsequently received an August 7, 2020 medical report from Dr. Stevens. 

Appellant also submitted reports of work ability, dated August 7 through November 2, 2020, from

Dr. Stevens.

By decision dated December 1, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for authorization 

for drain and injection of the joint/bursa, finding that the evidence of record did not support that it 

was medically necessary to treat the effects of her accepted employment-related conditions. 

However, OWCP did not complete its attempt to explain why the evidence was found to be 

insufficient. 

The Board, having duly considered this matter, finds that this case is not in posture for 

decision.

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.2 Its regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 

provide that the decision of the Director of OWCP shall contain findings of fact and a statement 

of reasons.3 Additionally, 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 the defect.4

In its December 1, 2020 decision, OWCP summarily denied appellant’s request for 

authorization for drain and injection of the joint/bursa. OWCP 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. It should have explained why the medical 

 

2 5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).

3 20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

4 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5 (February 2013).
3

evidence was insufficient to establish that the request was medically necessary to treat the effects 

of her accepted employment-related conditions.5

Accordingly, the Board will set aside OWCP’s December 1, 2020 decision and remand the 

case for OWCP to review the evidence in support of appellant’s request for authorization for drain 

and injection of the joint/bursa and make findings of fact and provide a statement of reasons for 

its decision, pursuant to the standards set forth in section 5 U.S.C. § 8124(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.126. After this and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue 

a de novo decision.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT December 1, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’

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

with this order of the Board.

Issued: August 26, 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

 

5 See Order Remanding Case, C.A., Docket No. 20-1297 (issued March 18, 2021); Order Remanding Case, C.C., 

Docket No. 20-1323 (issued March 2, 2021).