United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Auburn, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1235

Issued: March 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On August 8, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 25, 2022 merit decision of 

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

assigned the appeal Docket No. 22-1235.2

On November 3, 2021 appellant, then a 56-year-old postal support employee, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on October 19, 2021 she felt pain in her low back 

and the middle of her left gluteus maximus while lifting and catching a heavy bundle in the 

performance of duty. She stopped work on the date of injury and returned to work on 

1 The Board notes that during the pendency of this appeal, OWCP issued a n October 3 and December 1, 2022 

decisions which denied payment of compensation from May 12through June20, 2022. As the Board and OWCP may 

not simultaneously have jurisdiction over the same issue, the October 3, 2022 OWCP decision is null and void. See 

L.F., Docket No. 19-1275 (issued October 29, 2020); Terry L. Smith, 51 ECAB 182 (1999); Russell E. Lerman, 43 

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

2 The Board notes that following the July 25, 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

October 26, 2021. OWCP accepted the claim for lumbar muscle strain. Appellant stopped work 

again on May 12, 2022. 

On May 6, 2022 Dr. Jessica Possehn, Board-certified in emergency medicine, noted that 

appellant’s hip and leg pain first presented when she overextended at work in October 2021. A 

computerized tomography (CT) scan performed that day showed no evidence of discrete left hip 

fracture or soft tissue hematoma within the pelvis. Degenerative narrowing was noted at L5-S1 

with disc and facet degenerative changes combining to cause neuroforaminal narrowing. 

Dr. Possehn noted that she would order a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. She diagnosed 

hip pain and held appellant off work from May 6 through 9, 2022. 

On May 11, 2022 Dr. Daniel E. Carter, an emergency medicine specialist, diagnosed leftside sciatica, noting that appellant’s ongoing left-sided low back pain for the last month was 

somewhat worse that day after working. 

On May 25, 2022 appellant was provided a bursal corticosteroid injection. On May 26, 

2022 she underwent an L5-S1 interlaminar epidural steroid injection.

Work status reports of record signed by Dr. Akhila Pamula, an emergency medicine 

specialist; Dr. Jessica P. Cadogan, an emergency medicine specialist; Dr. Christopher T. Lee,

Board-certified in diagnostic radiology; Dr. T. Yoon, Board-certified in pain medicine; and

Dr. Casey M. Roche, Board-certified in emergency medicine, placed appellant off work.

On June 20, 2022 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability from 

work for the period May 12 through June 20, 2022.

In a June 1, 2022 report, Dr. Timothy Yoon, a Board-certified physiatrist, reported that 

appellant had chronic pain due to injury and that she was not working. He noted the results of a 

February 20, 2022 MRI scan of lumbar spine revealed multilevel degenerative disc disease with 

high-grade spinal canal stenosis, moderate bilateral L5-S1 stenosis with impingement of the 

bilateral L5 exiting nerve roots. Dr. Yoon opined that appellant was unable to work and extended 

her disability status to June 30, 2022, noting that she had exhausted all conservative treatment 

options and was being scheduled for lumbar surgery.

In a development letter dated June 29, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of the claim for compensation. It advised her of the type of medical evidence needed and afforded 

her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

OWCP continued to receive evidence, including a June 6, 2022 physical therapy note; 

multiple work status notes from physicians before and during period claimed;

3 a June 18, 2022 

lumbar spine x-ray; and a July 1, 2022 report fromDr. Yoon, which extended appellant’s disability 

status to July 30, 2022.

3 This includes, but is not limited to, an April29, 2022 work status report from Dr.Pamula; a December 12, 2022 

work status note by Dr.Dinesh K. Pokharel, a Board-certified internist; May18 and July 1, 2022 work excuses note 

by Dr. Yoon; a July 9, 2022 work status note by Dr.CarlH. Shin, a physiatrist; and a May6, 2022 work status note 

by Dr. Cadogan.
3

By decision dated July 25, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation. It 

noted that it had not received any evidence prior to the development letter dated June 29, 2022. 

OWCP further noted that it had received a July 1, 2022 report from Dr. Yoon, work status 

certificates, work status reports, and modified activity forms.

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

decision.

In the case of William A. Couch,4the 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.

The Board finds that the evidence OWCP received prior to the June 29, 2022 development 

letter, including Dr. Yoon’s June 1, 2022 report, which is relevant to the disability claim, was not 

reviewed by OWCP prior to its final decision.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 which was properly submitted to OWCP prior 

to the time of issuance of its final decision be reviewed and addressed by OWCP. 6 As OWCP did 

not consider the medical evidence received prior to the June 29, 2022 development letter, the 

Board cannot review such evidence for the first time on appeal.7

For this reason, the case will be remanded to OWCP to properly consider all of the evidence 

of record.8 Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall 

issue a de novo decision.

4

41 ECAB 548 (1990).

5

See T.G., Docket No. 19-1930 (issued January 8, 2021).

6

J.H., Docket No. 22-1202 (issued November 30, 2022); see C.S.,Docket No. 18-1760 (issued November 25, 

2019); YvetteN. Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004);see also WilliamA. Couch, supra note 4.

7

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c). See also J.H., id.; G.M.,Docket No. 16-1766 (issued February 16, 2017).

8

J.H., supra note 6; M.J.,Docket No. 18-0605 (issued April12, 2019).
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 25, 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: March 15, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board