United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.K., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CASTAIC STATION 

POST OFFICE, Santa Clarita, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0392

Issued: August 19, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On January 18, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 1, 2021 merit 

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

Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 22-0392. 

On September 22, 2021 appellant, then a 62-year-old distribution clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 3, 2021 at 11:00 p.m. he sustained a cut on 

his right wrist from a needle of unknown origin protruding out of an improperly packaged 

hazardous materials (hazmat) box while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the 

claim form, appellant’s supervisor acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of 

duty. Appellant stopped work on September 3, 2021. 

In a September 7, 2021 statement, appellant explained that at approximately 11:00 p.m. on 

September 3, 2021, he was handling a small hazmat sharps box and a needle was sticking out of 

the corner of the box. He noted that the needle scratched his right wrist, and he began bleeding. 

1 The Board notes that, following the November 1, 2021 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to 

OWCP. 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

Appellant stated that he immediately informed his supervisor and gave her the box before washing 

the wound and going to the emergency room. 

An unsigned emergency department after visit summary dated September 4, 2021 indicated 

that appellant was seen by Stephanie Conte, a physician assistant, who provided treatment for 

needlestick injuries due to exposure to bodily fluid. Appellant was prescribed prophylactic 

treatment for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus 

(HCV). He also received a tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (TDAP) vaccine and underwent 

laboratory testing for HIV and hepatitis. The form noted diagnoses of work-related injury and 

exposure to body fluids by contaminated hypodermic needle stick.

In a work excuse note of even date, Ms. Conte noted that appellant was seen and treated in 

the emergency department on that date and could return to work on September 5, 2021. 

In a development letter dated September 30, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and 

provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence.

Appellant subsequently submitted a September 17, 2021 medical report from Alexei 

Pouzakov, a physician assistant, related appellant’s history of injury and noted that appellant’s 

major job functions included taking care of hazmat, distributing flat tubes, and h andling letter 

trays. Mr. Pouzakov noted that appellant’s laboratory results for HIV, HBV, and HCV were 

negative. He noted that no wound was visualized, and that appellant was asymptomatic. 

Mr. Pouzakov diagnosed contact with and exposure to potentially hazardous body fluids. 

In a September 17, 2021 form report, Dr. Jill Russom, a Board-certified family practitioner, 

related appellant’s history of injury and treatment. She diagnosed exposure to a blood-borne 

pathogen and indicated that appellant was cleared to perform his usual work.

Appellant responded to OWCP’s development questionnaire on October 5, 2021, further 

describing the claimed September 3, 2021 employment incident. He related that there were no 

witnesses to the incident, that he had not sustained any other injuries before reporting this injury 

to his supervisor or physician, and that he had no similar disability or symptoms prior to the 

September 3, 2021 employment incident.

On November 1, 2021 OWCP received a September 4, 2021 emergency department report, 

signed by Ms. Conte and countersigned by Dr. Scott Ford, a physician specializing in emergency 

medicine. Dr. Ford related appellant’s history of injury and treatment, noting that he worked at a 

post office where individuals sent in used needles to be sent off and incinerated. Examination 

revealed a very small puncture to the medial right wrist. Dr. Ford diagnosed a work-related injury 

and exposure to body fluids by a contaminated hypodermic needle stick. By decision dated 

November 1, 2021, OWCP accepted that the September 3, 2021 employment incident occurred, 

as alleged, but denied the claim as appellant had not established a diagnosed medical condition in 

connection with the accepted employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements 

had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA. In its decision, OWCP only referenced 
3

appellant’s September 7, 2021 statement, the unsigned September 4, 2021 after visit summary, and 

the reports from Mr. Pouzakov and Dr. Russom. 

The Board has duly considered this matter and 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. As detailed above, OWCP received a September 4, 2021 emergency 

department report signed by Dr. Ford relatingappellant’s history of injury and containing a finding 

of a small puncture to the medial right wrist. Dr. Ford diagnosed a work-related injury and 

exposure to body fluids by a contaminated hypodermic needle stick. OWCP, however, did not 

review this evidence in its November 1, 2021 merit decision. It, thus, failed to follow its 

procedures by not considering all of the relevant evidence of record.3

As Board decisions are final with regard to the subject matter appealed, it is crucial that 

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

decision.4 On remand, OWCP shall review and consider all evidence properly submitted by 

appellant prior to the issuance of the November 1, 2021 OWCP decision. Following this and other 

such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.5

2

41 ECAB 548 (1990); see also K.B., Docket No. 20-1320 (issued February 8, 2021); R.D., Docket No. 17-1818 

(issued April 3, 2018).

3 OWCP’s procedures provide that all evidence submitted should be reviewed and discussed in the decision. 

Evidence received following development that lacks probative value also should 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).

4 E.D., Docket No. 20-0620 (issued November 18, 2020); see also L.B., Docket No. 21-0140 (issued August 25, 

2021); C.S., Docket No. 18-1760 (issued November 25, 2019); Yvette N. Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004); WilliamA. 

Couch,supranote 2.

5 The Board notes that the employing establishment issued a Form CA-16, datedSeptember 4, 2021. A completed 

Form CA-16 authorization may constitute a contract for payment of medical expenses to a medical facility or 

physician, when properly executed. The form creates a contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee 

directly, to pay for the cost of the examination or treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.300(c); V.S., Docket No. 20-1034 (issued November 25, 2020); J.G., Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 

2018); Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 1, 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: August 19, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board