United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.E., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Banning, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0515

Issued: August 24, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 17, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 15, 2020 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act1(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction over the merits in this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s claim to augmented 

compensation.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 15, 2013 appellant, then a 48-year-old city letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of her 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

repetitive work duties including repetitive casing of mail.

2

 She noted that she first became aware 

of her condition on February 1, 2011 and of its relationship to her federal employment on 

March 1, 2011. OWCP assigned the claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx042. On June 10, 2014 it

accepted the claim for right complete rotator cuff rupture and right carpal tunnel syndrome.

Appellant underwent OWCP-authorized right shoulder arthroscopy with repair of the rotator cuff 

on July 24, 2014. 

On August 4 and 11, 2014 appellant filed claims for wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) 

for disability from July 12 to August 8, 2014. In the August 4, 2014 Form CA-7, she listed her 

son, who was born on December 31, 1979, and nephew, who was born on August 15, 2000, as 

dependents. 

OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls for temporary 

total disability from work for the period July 12 through August 8, 2014 at the basic statutory twothirds pay rate. 

In an August 21, 2014 letter, OWCP advised appellant that, if her son was incapable of 

self-support, she should submit a medical report describing his mental or physical disability. It 

also advised her that she was only entitled to compensation for her nephew if she had formally 

adopted him. OWCP requested that appellant submit documentation verifying the adoption. 

Appellant subsequently filed additional Form CA-7 claims for wage-loss compensation for 

disability from August 9 through November 14, 2014. OWCP paid her wage-loss compensation 

on the supplemental rolls for temporary total disability from work for the period August 9 through 

November 15, 2014 at the basic two-thirds pay rate. 

On February 17, 2015 appellant returned to work in a modified carrier technician position. 

Subsequently, she filed Form CA-7 claims for wage-loss compensation for intermittent disability 

from February 17, 2015 through March 5, 2016. 

OWCP continued to pay appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls for 

temporary total disability from work for the period February 17, 2015 through January 14, 2016

due to work restrictions at the basic two-thirds pay rate. 

By decision dated May 11, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence of 

disability from January 19 through March 5, 2016. It found that the medical evidence of record 

was insufficient to establish that she was disabled from work due to a material change or worsening 

of her accepted employment-related conditions. 

On May 26, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration. 

 

2 Appellant subsequently filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) under OWCP File No. xxxxxx124, alleging 

that on September 16, 2016 she sustained an injury when a fence fell on her while in the performance of duty. OWCP 

accepted that claim for strain of unspecified muscle, fascia, and tendon at shoulder and upper arm level, left arm; strain 

of unspecified muscle, fascia, and tendon at shoulder and upper arm level, right arm, and strain of unspecified muscle, 

fascia, and tendon at neck level. Appellant also filed a claim for an injury under OWCP File No. xxxxxx058. OWCP

has not administratively combined these claims with the instant claim. 
3

By decision dated June 2, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a), finding that it neither raised substantial 

legal questions, nor included new or relevant evidence. 

OWCP received a letters of guardianship form from the Superior Court of California, 

County of Riverside dated July 14, 2016, appointing appellant as the legal guardian of her nephew. 

The letters of guardianship indicated that appellant’s nephew was born on December 28, 2002. An 

August 30, 2016 memorandum of telephone call (Form CA-110) indicated that OWCP confirmed 

with the California court that appellant was granted guardianship of her nephew by the July 14, 

2016 letters of guardianship.

Thereafter, appellant filed additional Form CA-7 claims for wage-loss compensation for 

intermittent disability from April 7 through 28, 2020 and May 5 through 14, 2020. OWCP paid 

her wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls for temporary total disability due to 

absences to attend physical therapy treatments during the periods April 7 through 30, 2020 and

May 5 through 14, 2020 at the augmented 75 percent rate. 

On May 27 and June 17, 2020 appellant requested that OWCP change her dependent status 

because she had changed it in her other OWCP claims. 

By decision dated September 15, 2020, OWCP found that appellant was not entitled to 

augmented compensation during the period of her disability from work. It explained that, although 

she was the guardian of her nephew, he was not considered a “child” as defined under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8101(9) and, thus, he was not an eligible dependent as defined under 5 U.S.C. § 8110. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

FECA provides that the United States shall pay compensation for the disability or death of 

an employee resulting from a personal injury sustained while in the performance of duty.3 If the 

disability is total, the United States shall pay the employee during the period of total disability the 

basic compensation rate of 66 2/3 percent of her monthly pay. A disabled employee is entitled to 

an augmented compensation rate of 75 percent if he or she has one or more dependents.4

Section 8110(a) of FECA provides that a dependent includes an unmarried child who, 

while living with the employee or receiving regular contributions from the employee toward his 

or her support, is either under 18 years of age or over 18 years of age and incapable of self-support 

due to physical or mental disability.5 A child is also considered a dependent if he or she is an 

unmarried student under 23 years of age who has not completed four years of education beyond 

 

3 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a).

4 R.G., Docket No. 18-1251 (issued November 26, 2019); O.R., 59 ECAB 432, 436 (2008); id. at §§ 8105(a) and 

8110(b).

5

Id. at § 8110(a).
4

the high school level and is currently pursuing a full-time course of study at a qualifying college, 

university, or training program.6

Pursuant to section 8101(9) of FECA the definition of a child includes stepchildren, 

adopted children, and posthumous children, but does not include married children.

7

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that her wageloss compensation should have been paid at an augmented compensation rate.

The Board notes that a nephew is not recognized as an eligible dependent for purposes of 

augmented compensation. As noted, pursuant to section 8101(9) of FECA, the term child may 

include stepchildren, adopted children, or posthumous children. The Board has specifically held 

that, when a claimant has legal guardianship over a nephew, this does not qualify the child as a 

dependent if the recipient of compensation has not adopted the child.8 Although appellant’s 

nephew may be living with her and she may be his legal guardian, appellant has not legally adopted 

her nephew. Therefore, he does not qualify as an eligible dependent.

9

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that her wageloss compensation should have been paid at an augmented compensation rate.

 

6 R.G., supra note 4; see also E.G., 59 ECAB 599, 603 n.10 (2008).

7 5 U.S.C. § 8101(9).

8 Aretha Hudson, 28 ECAB 423 (1988).

9 See C.V., Docket No. 13-2108 (issued June 17, 2014).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 15, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 24, 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