United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, WILLIAM 

BEAUMONT ARMY MEDICAL CENTER, 

El Paso, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0038

Issued: June 15, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On October 12, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 26, 2022 nonmerit 

decision of the office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

assigned Docket No. 23-0038.

On February 9, 2011 appellant, then a 59-year-old medical support assistant, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that on May 2, 2004 she sustained a right 

shoulder strain during a mock drill while in the performance of duty.1 OWCP accepted the claim 

for a right shoulder and upper arm sprain. It subsequently expanded its acceptance of appellant’s 

claim to include brachial neuritis or radiculitis, degeneration of cervical intervertebral disc, 

displacement of cervical intervertebral disc without myelopathy, cervical sprain, closed dislocation 

of fifth, sixth, and seventh cervical vertebrae, closed dislocation of multiple cervical vertebrae, 

right elbow contusion, right-hand contusion, and right-hand sprain. Appellant underwent an unauthorized C5-6 and C6-7 anterior discectomy and fusion on October 24, 2013. OWCP

subsequently authorized right shoulder arthroscopy with rotator cuff repair and biceps tenodesis

on August 31, 2015.

1 The record contains a May 2, 2004 traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) for the same May 2, 2004 right shoulder 

injury, signed by appellant’s supervisor on May 3, 2004.
2

On March 22, 2016 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a schedule 

award.

By decision dated November 3, 2016, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 11 

percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity. It found zero percent permanent 

impairment of the left upper extremity.

On August 3, 2017 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for an additional schedule award.

By decision dated May 18, 2018, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for an 

additional 13 percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity, for a total 24 percent 

permanent impairment of the right upper extremity.

On March 13, 2019 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for an additional schedule award.2

By decision dated May 16, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an additional 

schedule award as the medical evidence of record did not establish a greater percentage of 

permanent impairment than that previously awarded.

On June 29, 2020 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for an additional schedule award.

By decision dated September 9, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an additional 

schedule award as the medical evidence of record did not establish a greater percentage of 

permanent impairment than previously awarded.

On October 15, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration. She indicated her disagreement 

with Dr. Mrochek’s impairment rating.

By decision dated December 21, 2020, OWCP denied the request for reconsideration as 

appellant’s request did not raise substantive legal questions nor include new, relevant evidence. 

Thereafter, OWCP received June 9, 2021 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the 

right shoulder and cervical spine.

In a September 15, 2021 report, Dr. Mrochek found zero percent permanent impairment of

the bilateral upper extremities.

2

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a March 5, 2019 impairment rating byDr.Michael Mrochek, a Boardcertified physiatrist, who utilized the diagnosis-based impairment (DBI) rating method of the sixth edition of the 

American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides), Table 15-5, 

page 401, and found 11 percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity for acromioclavicular joint injury. 

Dr. Mrochek noted that she had no permanent impairment of the upper extremities due to cervical radiculopathy.
3

In a September 19, 2021 work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c), Dr. Mrochek 

indicated that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and could perform 

full-duty work with no restrictions.3

On April 11, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration. She indicated her disagreement 

with Dr. Mrochek’s impairment rating, and asserted that June 9, 2021 imaging studies 

demonstrated multiple changes in her condition.

On September 22, 2022 appellant again requested reconsideration. She asserted that 

symptoms in her neck and upper extremities and new findings on imaging studies warranted a 

schedule award. 

By decision dated September 26, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. 

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

decision.

OWCP did not make findings regarding the evidence appellant submitted in support of the 

reconsideration request.4 It summarily denied appellant’s request for reconsideration without 

complying with the review requirement of FECA and its implementing regulations. 5 As noted, 

section 8124(a) of FECA provides that OWCP shall determine and make a finding of fact and 

make an award for or against payment of compensation.6 Its regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 

provide that the decision of the Director of OWCP shall contain findings and facts and a statement 

of reasons.7 As well, OWCP’s procedures provide that the reasoning behind OWCP’s evaluation 

should be clear enough for the reader to understand the precise defect of the claim and the kind of 

evidence which would overcome it.8

3 On September 22, 2021 OWCP received appellant’s unsigned, undated Form CA-7 claiminga schedule award. 

4

See Order Remanding Case, A.J., Docket No. 21-0944 (issued March 23, 2022); Order Remanding Case, R.C., 

Docket No. 20-1671 (issued May 6, 2021); Order Remanding Case, J.K., Docket No. 20-0556 (issued August13, 

2020); Order Remanding Case, C.D., Docket No. 20-0450 (issued August13, 2020); Order Remanding Case, T.B., 

Docket No. 20-0426 (issued July 27, 2020).

5

See M.G., Docket No. 21-0893 (issued December 27, 2021);Order Remanding Case, W.D.,Docket No. 20-0859 

(issued November 20, 2020); Order Remanding Case, C.G., Docket No. 20-0051 (issued June 29, 2020); Order 

Remanding Case, T.P., Docket No. 19-1533 (issued April 30, 2020); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b).

6

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).

7

20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

8 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5 (February 2013) (all 

decisions should contain findings of fact sufficient to identify the benefit being denied and the reason for the 

disallowance).
4

In the September 26, 2022 decision, OWCP did not reference or consider the June 9, 2021 

imaging studies, Dr. Mrochek’s September 15, 2021 impairment rating, or his September 19, 2021 

form report. It failed to analyze this evidence. 

The Board will therefore set aside OWCP’s September 26, 2022 decision and remand the 

case for findings of fact and a statement of reasons to be followed by an appropriate decision on 

appellant’s reconsideration request, which describes the evidence submitted. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 26, 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: June 15, 2023

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