United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Aurora, CO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0255

Issued: November 30, 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 December 1, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from June 8 and August 3, 2020 merit 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 21-0255.2

1 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from June 8, 2020 was December 5, 2020. As this fell on a Saturday, 

appellant had until the following business day, Monday, December 7, 2020 to file the appeal from the June 8, 2020 

decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(3). Since using December 10, 2020, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk 

of the Appellate Boards would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the postmark is considered the date of 

filing. The date of the U.S. Postal Service postmark is December 1, 2020, which renders the appeal with regard to the

June 8, 2020 decision timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1).

2 The Board notes that, by decision dated May 14, 2021, OWCP denied modification of the August 3, 2020 decision. 

However, appellant had already filed the current appeal to the Board on December 10, 2020. The OWCP may not 

simultaneously have jurisdiction over the same issue. Consequently, the May 14, 2021 decision is set aside as null 

and void. See L.F., Docket No. 19-1275 (issued October 29, 2020); Terry L. Smith, 51 ECAB 182 (1999); ArloniaB. 

Taylor, 44 ECAB 591 (1993) (Alternate Member, Groom concurring in part and dissenting in part); Russell E. Lerman, 

43 ECAB 770 (1992); Douglas E. Billings, 41 ECAB 880 (1990).
2

On December 10, 2018 appellant, then a 54-year-old transportation security officer, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 11, 2018 she sustained left knee 

and right wrist injuries when she tripped over an empty bin cart while in the performance of duty. 

On February 8, 2019 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for contusion of the left knee and sprain 

of the right wrist. On August 14, 2019 it expanded the acceptance of the claim to include strain of 

the muscle, fascia, and tendons of the lower back. OWCP subsequently also accepted lumbar 

spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy, and sacroiliitis.

In a report dated February 7, 2020, Dr. Amanda Cava, a Board-certified family 

practitioner, diagnosed lumbar spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy and advised that 

appellant would undergo right wrist surgery on February 25, 2020. Dr. Cava recommended no 

work beginning February 25, 2020. On February 25, 2020 appellant underwent OWCP-approved 

right wrist arthropathy performed by Dr. Kulvinder Sachar, a Board-certified orthopedic and hand 

surgeon.

On March 16, 2020 appellant filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability 

from work for the periods February 25 through 29 and March 1 through 14, 2020.

In a letter from the employing establishment dated March 23, 2020, a representative of the 

employing establishment explained that appellant had not worked due to surgery for her on-thejob injury from February 25 through March 12, 2020, and that she returned to a limited-duty 

assignment at four hours per day on March 13, 2020 as instructed by her physician.

OWCP subsequently received additional evidence. On March 9 and 23, 2020 a physician 

assistant assessed contusion of appellant’s left knee, ganglion cyst of the volar aspect of the right 

wrist, right wrist sprain, and lumbar strain. On March 9, 2020 he recommended that appellant 

return to work with restrictions of working only four hours per day, lifting up to 10 pounds 

occasionally, pushing/pulling up to 10 pounds occasionally, wearing a splint/brace on the right 

upper extremity, and sitting 50 percent of the time. On March 23, 2020 the physician assistant

again noted appellant’s restrictions, but indicated that appellant could work up to eight hours per 

day.

On April 15, 2020 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for the period March 1 through 10, 2020. 

OWCP subsequently received a report dated April 9, 2020, wherein Dr. John Aschberger, 

Board-certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation, diagnosed strain of the muscle, fascia, and 

tendons of the lower back, lumbar facet pain, and wrist strain. He noted that appellant was 

currently working, but with a reduced schedule, stating that appellant had been workingfour hours 

per day due to her right wrist condition, but that now she was working two six-hour days per week.

By decision dated June 8, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation, finding that she had not established disability from work for the period February 25 

through 29, 2020 causally related to the accepted November 11, 2018 employment injury. Itstated 

that it had not received from appellant any medical evidence supporting a restrictive work 

schedule.

On June 8, 2020 OWCP received a report dated April 29, 2020 in which Dr. Cava 

diagnosed right wrist sprain, triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) tear, and lumbar strain. 
3

Dr. Cava noted that appellant’s wrist strain was improving and that “she was released by

Dr. Sachar” on March 30, 2020. She noted that appellant could return to modified work and work 

her entire shift with restrictions of lifting up to 10 pounds constantly and 20 pounds occasionally, 

with pushing/pulling of up to 20 pounds occasionally.

By decision dated August 3, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation, finding that she had not established disability from work for the period March 1 

through 28, 2020 causally related to the accepted November 11, 2018 employment injury. Itnoted 

that it had not received any medical evidence supporting a restrictive work schedule.

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

decision. In the case of William A. Couch,

3

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.

In its June 8 and August 3, 2020 decisions, OWCP failed to address the relevant evidence 

submitted by appellant. As such, OWCP failed to follow its procedures by properly discussing all 

of the relevant evidence of record.4 It is crucial that OWCP address all relevant evidence received 

prior to the issuance of its final decision, as the Board’s decisions are final with regard to the 

subject matter appealed.5 

The Board thus finds that this case is not in posture for decision, as OWCP did not address 

the evidence submitted by appellant in support of her claims for compensation.

6

 On remand,

OWCP shall review all evidence of record and, following any further development as it deems 

necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision.

3

41 ECAB 548 (1990); see also S.H., Docket No. 19-1582 (issued May 26, 2020); R.D., Docket No. 17-1818 

(issued April 3, 2018).

4

“All evidence submitted should be reviewed and discussed in the decision. Evidence received following 

development that lacks probative value should also 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).

5

See C.S., Docket No. 18-1760 (issued November 25, 2019); Yvette N. Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004); see also 

WilliamA. Couch, supranote 3.

6

See S.H., supra note 3; V.C., Docket No. 16-0694 (issued August19, 2016).
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 3 and June 8, 2020 decisions of the Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs are set aside and the case is remanded to OWCP for further 

proceedings consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: November 30, 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