United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Pittsburgh, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0265

Issued: August 7, 2023

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, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

On December 15, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 30, 2022 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs OWCP).1 The Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 23-0265.

On March 29, 2022 appellant, then a 35-year-old rural carrier associate, filed an

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed chronic back pain, stiffness,

and pinching while sitting for long periods of time, along with soreness and limited mobility 

throughout the spine while bending or twisting, due to factors of her federal employment. She 

noted that she first became aware of her condition on January 27, 2022 and realized its relation to 

her federal employment on March 24, 2022. Appellant did not initially stop work. 

On June 24, 2022 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for spondylosis without myelopathy 

or radiculopathy, lumbar region.

1 The Board notes that, following the November 30, 2022 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, 

the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record 

that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the 

Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this 

additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

In a report dated June 30, 2022, Dr. Thomas P. Canseco, a chiropractor, provided treatment 

notes and assessed lumbar sprain/strain rule out herniated nucleus pulposus, lumbar sprain, rule 

out radiculopathy, and spondylosis without myelopathy. 

Beginning on September 2, 2022 appellant filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for 

disability from work commencing July 16, 2022. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted reports and treatment notes from Dr. Bandhu 

Paudyal, a Board-certified neurophysiologist, who reviewed August 4, 2022 nerve conduction 

velocity studies and electromyography scans.

OWCP received a Form CA-17 dated August 29, 2022, from Dr. Christian A. Fras, an 

orthopedic surgeon, who opined that appellant was able to return to work with restrictions on 

August 29, 2022. 

By development letter dated September 7, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the

deficiencies of her claimsfor compensation. It advised her of the type of medical evidence needed 

to establish her claims and afforded her 30 days to respond.

Appellant then submitted reports and diagnostic studies including an August 17, 2022 

x-ray of the lumbar spine read by Dr. Jeffery B. Nemeroff, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist;

September 13, 2022 treatment notes and an after-visit summary from Dr. Robert Nick Hernandez, 

a neurosurgeon; chiropractic treatment notes from Dr. CansecodatedMarch 29 through October 3, 

2022 and a September 28, 2022 report and September 29, 2022 Form CA-17 from Dr. Sagi M. 

Kuznits, a Board-certified neurosurgeon. 

OWCP also received narrative reports dated August 16, and 29, 2022 from Dr. Fras. In the 

August 29, 2022 report, Dr. Fras provided physical examination findings, recommended lumbar 

surgery, and noted that he had completed work restriction forms.

By decision dated November 30, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claimsfor compensation 

for disability from work commencing July 16, 2022. The decision review the August 29, 2022 

narrative report from Dr. Fras.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, finds that this case is not in posture for 

decision.

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. While OWCP is not required to list every piece of evidence 

submitted, the Board notes that the August 29, 20221 report from Dr. Fras was not considered or 

addressed by OWCP in its September 2, 2021 decision.3

2

41 ECAB 548 (1990); see J.R., Docket No. 21-1421 (issued April20, 2022); see alsoR.D., Docket No. 17-1818 

(issued April 3, 2018).

3

See C.D., Docket No. 20-0168 (issued March 5, 2020).
3

Because Board decisions are final with regard to the subject matter appealed, 4it is crucial 

that OWCP consider and address all relevant evidence received prior to the issuance of its final 

decision.5 As OWCP did not consider and address all of the relevant evidence submitted prior to 

its November 30, 2022 decision, the Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.6

On remand OWCP shall review all relevant evidence that was of record at the time of the 

November 30, 2022 decision. Following this and other such further development as deemed 

necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 30, 2022 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 7, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).

5 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). See also E.D., Docket No. 20-0620 (issued November 18, 2020);Linda Johnson, 

45 ECAB 439 (1994) (OWCP must review all evidence relevant to the subject matter and received by OWCP before 

issuance of its final decision, including medical reports received on the same day it issues its decision); WilliamA. 

Couch, 41 ECAB 548, 553 (1990).

6

See M.N., Docket No. 20-0110 (issued July 7, 2020); Y.B., Docket No. 20-0205 (issued July 7, 2020); H.H., 

Docket No. 14-1985 (issued June 26, 2015).