United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Troy, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1054

Issued: March 30, 2022

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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 6, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 7, 2021 nonmerit decision

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

assigned Docket No. 21-1054.

This case has previously been before the Board.1 The facts and circumstances of the case 

as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts 

are as follows.

On June 15, 2015 appellant, then a 57-year-old customer care agent, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome due to 

factors of her federal employment, including an increase of work activities. She asserted that she 

first became aware of her claimed condition on February 7, 2000 and first realized its relation to 

1 Docket No. 19-0925 (issued September 25, 2019).
2

her federal employment on March 28, 2015. Appellant stopped work on March 17, 2015. OWCP 

assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx503.2

Appellant submitted a series of medical reports in support of the present claim, including 

a June 4, 2015 report from Dr. Sophia Grias-Radwanski, a Board-certified physiatrist. Dr. GriasRadwanski diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, bilateral cubital tunnel syndrome, and neck 

pain with radiculopathy symptoms.

After extensive development of the medical evidence, OWCP found a conflict in the 

medical opinion evidence between Dr. Grias-Radwanski and Dr. Allen L. Babcock, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon serving as an OWCP referral physician, regarding whether appellant 

sustained a new occupational injury due to employment factors. After additional development of 

the medical evidence,3it referred appellant for an impartial medical examination with

Dr. Clifford M. Buchman, an osteopath and Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who produced a 

July 25, 2018 report.

By decision dated August 23, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a new 

employment-related occupational condition, finding that the special weight of the medical opinion 

evidence rested with the well-rationalized opinion of Dr. Buchman, the impartial medical 

specialist. 

By decision dated March 8, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

August 23, 2018 decision.

Appellant appealed to the Board and, by decision dated September 25, 2019,

4

the Board 

affirmed OWCP’s March 8, 2019 decision.

In a letter dated September 21, 2020 and entered into the Integrated Federal Employees’

Compensation System (iFECS) on September 28, 2020, appellant requested reconsideration of her 

2 Appellant has a prior claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx427, for which she filed an occupational disease claim (Form 

CA-2) in January 2003. In March 2003 OWCP accepted the claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Appellant 

filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) in October 2008 alleging a recurrence of disability due to the accepted 

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome condition. OWCP converted appellant’s recurrence claim to a claim for a new 

occupational injury, and assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx340. In May 2009, it accepted that claim for aggravation 

of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. OWCP administratively combined OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx427, xxxxxx340, and 

xxxxxx503, with OWCP File No. xxxxxx427 designated as the master file.

3 Prior to the referral to Dr.Buchman, OWCP referred appellant to three other impartial medical specialists, but it 

found deficiencies in their evaluations,which required the referral to Dr.Buchman.

4

Supra note 1.
3

claim. On September 28, 2020 OWCP received a February 17, 2020 report from Dr. GriasRadwanski who provided an extensive discussion of appellant’s work duties and opined that she 

had sustained several new occupational conditions due to these duties. 5

By decision dated October 19, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration, 

finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. In reaching 

this decision, it did not discuss any evidence submitted by appellant in connection with her 

reconsideration request.

In an October 28, 2020 letter, appellant argued that she filed a timely reconsideration 

request in that a postal record demonstrated that, on September 25, 2020, OWCP had received her 

reconsideration request letter, dated September 21, 2020. She submitted a U.S. Postal Service 

tracking document that indicated a package was delivered on September 25, 2020 to an address in 

London, Kentucky.

In a September 21, 2020 letter received by OWCP on November 4, 2020, appellant argued 

that she had submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish several new employment-related 

occupational conditions. She indicated that she had submitted additional medical evidence, 

including a new report of Dr. Grias-Radwanski.

In an October 28, 2020 letter received by OWCP on the same date, appellant again argued 

that she filed a timely reconsideration request on September 25, 2020.

By decision dated January 7, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). It found that she had, in fact, filed a timely 

reconsideration request, but determined that she had not submitted evidence or argument entitling 

her to merit review. OWCP asserted that appellant had not submitted any new medical evidence 

in connection with her reconsideration request.

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision with respect to whether 

appellant sustained a new employment-related occupational condition.

FECA provides that OWCP shall determine and make findings of fact in making an award 

for or against payment of compensation after considering the claim presented by the employee and 

after completing such investigation as OWCP considers necessary with respect to the claim.6 Since 

the Board’s jurisdiction of a case is limited to reviewing the evidence which is before OWCP at the 

time of its final decision,7it is necessary that OWCP review all evidence submitted by a claimant 

and received by OWCP prior to issuance of its final decision. As the Board’s decisions are final as 

5 Appellant also submitted a May 15, 2018 report from Dr.PeterE. Metropoulos, an attending osteopath and Boardcertified occupational medicine specialist, and a March 3, 2020 report from Dr.Mitchell Pollak, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon. The reports had previously been submitted and considered by OWCP.

6

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a)(2).

7

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c).
4

to the subject matter appealed,8it is crucial that all evidence relevant to that subject matter which 

was properly submitted to OWCP prior to the time of issuance of its final decision be addressed by 

OWCP.9

In the present case, OWCP did not review evidence received prior to the issuance of its 

January 7, 2021 decision, i.e., a February 17, 2020 report of Dr. Grias-Radwanksi. The Board, 

therefore, must set aside this decision of OWCP and remand the case so that OWCP may fully 

consider the evidence that was properly submitted by appellant prior to the issuance of the January 7, 

2021 decision. Following this and such other further development it deems necessary, OWCP shall 

issue an appropriate decision regarding appellant’s occupational disease claim.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 7, 2021 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: March 30, 2022

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

8

Id. at § 501.6(d).

9 T.B., Docket No. 19-1841 (issued July7, 2020); E.P., Docket No. 14-0278 (issued February 26, 2014). See also

WilliamA. Couch, 41 ECAB 548, 553 (1990).