United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Manorville, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0301

Issued: August 21, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Paul Kalker, Esq. for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

On November 20, 2018 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an 

October 29, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk 

of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 19-0301.

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

decision and must be remanded to OWCP. 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. 

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2 41 ECAB 548, 553 (1990); see also K.L., Docket No. 16-1341 (issued December 20, 2016); E.Z., Docket No. 14-

274 (issued March 16, 2015); Linda Johnson, 45 ECAB 439 (1994).
2

On January 25, 2018 appellant, then a 48-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that same date he felt a sudden sharp pop/pain in his left bicep 

and armpit area when he reached for a scanner from a seated position while in the performance of 

duty. 

Appellant submitted medical evidence in support of his claim. By decision dated March 8, 

2018, OWCP found that appellant had not met his burden of proof to establish his claim as the 

medical evidence of record failed to establish that the diagnosed conditions of left rotator cuff tear 

and left biceps tendon rupture were causally related to the accepted January 25, 2018 employment 

incident. 

On August 7, 2018 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted 

additional medical evidence in support of his claim. Counsel argued that a newly submitted 

medical report dated July 13, 2018 from appellant’s treating physician Dr. Michael Sileo, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, was sufficient to establish appellant’s traumatic injury claim. The

July 13, 2018 report was received by OWCP on August 7, 2018. In his report, Dr. Sileo discussed 

the January 25, 2018 employment incident, reviewed diagnostic testing, provided an opinion on 

causal relationship, and described objective support for his findings. 

By decision dated October 29, 2018, OWCP affirmed the March 8, 2018 decision, finding 

that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof to establish 

that the diagnosed left rotator cuff tear and left biceps tendon rupture were causally related to the 

accepted January 25, 2018 employment incident. While the October 29, 2018 OWCP decision 

discussed some of the medical reports of record, it failed to acknowledge reference, or analyze the 

July 13, 2018 report of Dr. Sileo.

3

 

The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act provides that OWCP shall determine and make 

findings of fact in making an award for or against payment of compensation after considering the 

claim presented by the employee and after completing such investigation as OWCP considers 

necessary with respect to the claim.4 Since the Board’s jurisdiction of a case is limited to reviewing 

that evidence which was before OWCP at the time of its final decision,5it is necessary that OWCP 

review all evidence submitted by a claimant and received by OWCP prior to issuance of its final 

decision. As the Board’s decisions are final as to the subject matter appealed,6it is crucial that all 

evidence relevant to that subject matter which was properly submitted to OWCP prior to the time 

of issuance of its final decision be addressed by OWCP.7

The Board finds that because OWCP did not review the July 13, 2018 report of Dr. Sileo, 

the case shall be remanded to OWCP for full consideration of all the evidence that was of record

 

3

J.H., Docket No. 16-0450 (issued June 7, 2016).

4 5 U.S.C. § 8124(a)(2).

5 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c).

6

Id. at § 501.6(d).

7 N.S., Docket No. 18-0759 (issued March 11, 2019); see also supra note 2.
3

at the time of the October 29, 2018 decision.

8

 Following such further development as OWCP 

deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision on appellant’s traumatic injury claim. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 29, 2018 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: August 21, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

8 G.M., Docket No. 16-1766 (issued February 16, 2017).