United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

O.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 

Washington, DC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1932

Issued: May 21, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Erik B. Blowers, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On September 18, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a June 13, 

2019 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 19-1932.

2

On May 17, 2018 appellant, then a 56-year-old retired agent, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained aggravation and or acceleration of right hip 

osteoarthritis due to factors of his federal employment.

3

 Appellant indicated that he had a right 

 

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 Appellant timely requested oral argument before the Board. In light of the disposition of the appeal, the oral argument 

request is denied. 

3 Appellant provided a May 31, 2018 statement in which he related that he sustained an injury to his left hip at work 

on June 29, 2017, and had thereafter undergone a left hip replacement.
2

hip replacement in 2011and injured his left hip in 2017 resulting in replacement. He noted that on 

March 19, 2018, his physician informed him that his right hip condition was caused by work 

activities.

By decision dated July 3, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim,

finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that a diagnosed medical 

condition was causally related to accepted factors of appellant’s federal employment.

On July 23, 2018 appellant’s counsel requested reconsideration and submitted additional

evidence.

In an August 2, 2018 decision, OWCP modified its July 3, 2018 decision. It found that a 

March 19, 2018 report from Dr. Stephen Candela, an orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed primary 

osteoarthritis and degenerative joint disease of the right hip; however, the medical evidence did 

not establish a causal relationship between the right hip condition and factors of appellant’s federal

employment.

On October 18, 2018 counsel requested reconsideration and submitted additional evidence.

In a January 16, 2019 decision, OWCP denied modification of the August 2, 2018 decision.

On April 18, 2019 counsel requested reconsideration and submitted new evidence. The 

medical evidence included reports from Dr. Candela dated March 19, 2018, and additional reports 

dated June 16, August 24, September 1 and 28, November 11, and December 9, 2011.

By decision dated June 13, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. It listed 

the evidence it received in support of the request for reconsideration. However, OWCP did not 

address or acknowledge the medical reports dated June 16, August 24, September 1 and 28, 

November 11, and December 9, 2011.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that in the case of William A. Couch4

it 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.

The Board finds that the June 13, 2019 OWCP decision did not review the above-noted 

medical evidence. Whether OWCP receives relevant evidence on the date of the decision or days 

before, such evidence must be considered.5 As the Board’s decisions are final as to the subject 

matter appealed, it is crucial that all evidence relevant to the subject matter of the claim properly 

submitted to OWCP be reviewed and addressed.6 For this reason, the case will be remanded to 

OWCP to enable it to properly consider all the evidence submitted at the time of the June 13, 2019 

 

4 41 ECAB 548 (1990).

5 See G.A., Docket No. 19-1080 (issued January 2, 2020); T.J., Docket No. 14-1854 (issued February 3, 2015); J.J.,

Docket No. 12-1062(issued December 12, 2012); William McKennon, 51 ECAB 145 (1999).

6

Id.; see Yvette N. Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004).
3

decision. Following such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo

decision on the claim. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 13, 2019 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: May 21, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board