United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BURLINGTON POST 

OFFICE, Burlington, NC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0944

Issued: March 23, 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 June 1, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 13, 2021 nonmerit decision 

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

docketed the appeal as 21-0944.

On February 4, 2016 appellant, then a 54-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she sustained injuries on January 20, 2016 when she fell down 

steps while delivering mail. OWCP accepted the claim for contusion of right hip, contusion of left 

hip, left side lumbago with sciatica, left hip trochanteric bursitis, and lumbar intervertebral disc 

displacement. It authorized lumbar spinal decompression surgery, which occurred on 

December 15, 2016. OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation intermittently on the 

supplemental rolls and on the periodic rolls from May 28, 2016 until January 4, 2019. 

In a report dated June 17, 2019, Dr. Mark Dumonski, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

diagnosed left sacroiliac joint dysfunction and status post L3-4 decompression and fusion. He 

opined that appellant had 30 percent permanent impairment of her back, which was based upon 25 

percent permanent impairment for L3-4 fusion and 5 percent permanent impairment of the left 

sacroiliac joint.

On September 3, 2019 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7)for a schedule 

award.
2

On September 18, 2019 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Chason S. Hayes, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, for a permanent impairment rating. In a report dated October 11, 

2019, Dr. Hayes diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy. He found appellant was at maximum medical 

improvement (MMI). Using the sixth edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the 

Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides), he found that appellant had an eight 

percent permanent impairment of the lumbar spine. In an addendum dated November 5, 2019,

Dr. Hayes noted that he had been requested to recalculate appellant’s permanent impairment based 

upon her peripheral nerve impairment. He concluded that under this method, as appellant had no 

motor or sensory deficits she had zero percent permanent impairment.

In a report dated December 10, 2019, Dr. Arthur Harris, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon serving as the district medical adviser (DMA), noted his disagreement with Dr. Hayes’

October 11, 2019 impairment rating for lumbar spine impairment as this permanent impairment

rating was not based on The Guides Newsletter Rating Spinal Nerve Extremity Impairment Using 

the Sixth Edition (July/August 2009) (The Guides Newsletter) for rating spinal nerve impairments. 

He explained that appellant did not have any neurologic deficit causing sensory or motor loss, 

therefore she had a Class 0 placement using Table 2 of The Guides Newsletter resulting in zero

percent lower extremity permanent impairment, due to her lumbar radiculopathy. 

By decision dated December 30, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule 

award as the medical evidence of record was insufficient to support an impairment to a member or 

function of the body. 

In a report dated November 20, 2020, Dr. Dumonski diagnosed left sacroiliac joint 

dysfunction. He explained that appellant’s 30 percent permanent impairment rating was based 

upon her sacroiliac joint dysfunction, which caused pain to extend into her left leg. 

On January 5, 2021 OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration of the 

December 30, 2019 decision.

By decision dated January 13, 2021, 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 considered the matter, finds that this case is not in posture for 

decision. 

The Board finds that OWCP did not make findings regarding the evidence appellant 

submitted in support of the reconsideration request.1 OWCP summarily denied appellant’srequest 

for reconsideration without complying with the review requirement of FECA and its implementing 

regulations.2 As noted, section 8124(a) of FECA provides that OWCP shall determine and make 

1

See R.C., Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 20-1671 (issued May 6, 2021); J.K., Order Remanding Case, 

Docket No. 20-0556 (issued August13, 2020); C.D., Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 20-0450 (issued August13, 

2020); T.B., Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 20-0426 (issued July 27, 2020).

2

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 April30, 2020); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b).
3

a finding of fact and make an award for or against payment of compensation.3 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.4 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.5

In the January 13, 2021decision, OWCP did not reference or consider the November 20, 

2020 medical report of Dr. Dumonski that appellant submitted in support of her request for 

reconsideration. It failed to analyze this evidence. OWCP summarily denied appellant’s request 

for reconsideration without complying with the review requirements of FECA and its 

implementing regulations.6 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.7 Its regulations 

at 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 provide that the decision of the Director of OWCP shall contain findings of 

fact and a statement of reasons.8 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.9

The Board will therefore set aside OWCP’s January 13, 2021 decision and remand the case 

for an appropriate decision on appellant’s reconsideration request, which considers the evidence

submitted. Accordingly,

3

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

5 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).

6

See C.G., supra note 2; T.P., supranote 2; see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b).

7

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).

8

20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

9

Supra note 5.
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 13, 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 23, 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