United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

L.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

MID-ATLANTIC CONSOLIDATED PATIENT 

ACCOUNT CENTER, Martinsburg, WV, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0140

Issued: August 25, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On November 9, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 27, 2020 nonmerit 

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

Boards docketed the appeal as No. 21-0140.

On August 8, 2017 appellant, then a 45-year-old program support assistant, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed an emotional condition due 

to factors of her federal employment, including harassment and discrimination by her supervisors. 

She alleged that she worked in a hostile environment and suffered from post-traumatic stress 

disorder, stress, anxiety, and high blood pressure. Appellant noted that she first became aware of 

her condition on August 1, 2016 and of its relationship to her federal employment on 

July 19, 2017. She stopped work on July 19, 2017. 

By decision dated February 2, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a compensable factor of federal 

employment.
2

On August 11, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration and wrote, “past timely filing due 

to error.”

In an attached undated statement, appellant argued that the evidence demonstrates clear 

evidence that error in the processing of her claim. She explained that her request for 

reconsideration was untimely filed because her representative initially believed that her claim 

would be settled within her Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) claim; however, she was later

informed that she would be unable to recover lost wages through her EEO settlement. Appellant 

noted that her claim was settled with regard to the hostile work environment based on race, color,

and reprisal, and she was awarded a lump sum, which did not include her lost wages. 

OWCP received an undated report from Jyotsna Milbourne, a clinical psychologist, 

discussing appellant’s therapy for workplace stress: May 24, June 23 and 27, July 6 and 10, and 

November 16 and 30, 2017, and February 15, and April 27, 2018 e-mails and correspondence from 

J.H., a manager, to appellant; a May 2, 2019 statement from L.H., a coworker, who provided 

details regarding appellant’s work environment; and a November 9, 2017 statement from 

appellant’s spouse, describing employment factors that she had related to him. It also received the 

second page of a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) dated May 22, 2017. 

By decision dated August 27, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s reconsideration request, 

finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. It explained 

that “[t]he basis for this decision is you only submitted the [appeal] rights form stating your 

election of appeal is past timely filing due to error, but you did not elaborate on what the error is 

or explain the specific reason for the delay.”

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,

1

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. As detailed above, on reconsideration appellant submitted a

statement received on August 11, 2020. She also submitted additional evidence including medical 

evidence from a clinical psychologist, correspondence from her manager, statements from a 

coworker and her husband. OWCP, however, did not review this argument and/or evidence in its

August 27, 2020 decision. It, thus, failed to follow its procedures by not considering all of the 

relevant evidence of record.2

As Board decisions are final with regard to the subject matter appealed, it is crucial that 

OWCP address all relevant evidence received prior to the issuance of its final decision.3 The Board 

 

1 41 ECAB 548 (1990); see K.B., Docket No. 20-1320 (issued February 8, 2021); see also R.D., Docket No. 17-

1818 (issued April 3, 2018).

2 OWCP’s procedures provide that all evidence submitted should be reviewed and discussed in the decision. 

Evidence received following development that lacks probative value also should 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).

3 E.D., Docket No. 20-0620 (issued November 18, 2020); see C.S., Docket No. 18-1760 (issued November 25, 

2019); Yvette N. Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004); see also William A. Couch, supra note 1.
3

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

evidence in its August 27, 2020 decision.4 On remand, following any further development as 

deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue an appropriate decision.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 27, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: August 25, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

4 D.S., Docket No. 20-0589 (issued November 10, 2020); see V.C., Docket No. 16-0694 (issued August 19, 2016).