United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Omaha, NE, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1202

Issued: November 30, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

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 16, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 11, 2022non-merit decision 

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

assigned the appeal Docket No. 22-1202.

On April 30, 2021 appellant, then a 52-year-old retired letter carrier, filed an occupational 

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

to factors of his federal employment, including tightly gripping mail with his left hand and

fingering single pieces of mail with his right hand, 8 to 10 hours per day for 27 years. He noted 

that he first became aware of his condition and realized its relationship to his federal employment 

on December 9, 2020. On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment 

indicated that appellant retired on November 25, 2019.

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

By decision dated June 7, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the alleged work factors 

occurred as described.

On October 21, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal with the Board. By 

decision dated April 21, 2022,

2

the Board affirmed the June 7, 2021 decision.

OWCP continued to receive additional evidence following the June 7, 2021 decision, 

including a statement by appellant dated September 7, 2021, which indicated that before he 

resigned from his federal employment, he experienced numbness in, and reduced function of his 

right hand. He also noted progressively worsening symptoms and visible atrophy in his right wrist

area. Appellant further related that, while working as a carrier, he held his hands in the same 

position for 8 to 10 hours per day, including the first two fingers of his right hand, which he used 

continuously to flip through pieces of mail. He indicated that those two fingers were the most 

symptomatic.

OWCP also received a notification of personnel action (PS Form-50) dated November 25, 

2019, which indicated that appellant’s last day in pay status was November 12, 2019.

On June 6, 2022 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. In support of the

request, he submitted additional medical evidence including a November 23, 2020 report by

Dr. Carleigh B. Golden, a Board-certified internal medicine specialist, a December 9, 2020 report 

by Dr. Karen L. Bremer, a Board-certified neurologist, a December 22, 2020 report by

Dr. Gangadasu S. Reddy, a Board-certified hand, plastic, and reconstructive surgery specialist, and 

a January 27, 2021 postoperative follow-up note by Kathy Heurter, a nurse practitioner. This 

evidence pertained to treatment of appellant’s right wrist and hand, including discussion of carpal 

tunnel release surgery on January 13, 2020.

By decision dated July 11, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of his claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a), finding that his request for reconsideration 

neither raised substantial legal questions, nor included new or relevant evidence. It noted that the 

evidence on reconsideration included the November 23, 2020 and December 9 and 22, 2020 

medical reports. OWCP further noted that “while [he] submitted medical evidence indicating 

diagnosis of carpal tunnel, [he] still did not provide a statement describing in detail the job task 

[he performed] which have caused and/or aggravated this condition.”

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

decision.

2 Docket No. 22-0062 (issued April21, 2022).
3

In the case of William A. Couch,

3

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.

In its July 11, 2022 decision, OWCP noted that “while [appellant] submitted medical 

evidence indicating diagnosis of carpal tunnel, [he] still did not provide a statement describing in 

detail the job task [he performed] which have caused and/or aggravated this condition. ” While

OWCP is not required to list every piece of evidence submitted to the record, appellant’s 

September 7, 2021 statement was received following OWCP June 7, 2021 decision but reviewed 

by OWCP in its July 11, 2022 decision.4 

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. 5 As OWCP did 

not consider appellant’s September 7, 2021 statement received following the June 7, 2021

decision, the Board cannot review such evidence for the first time on appeal.6

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

of record.7 Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall 

issue a de novo decision.8

3

41 ECAB 548 (1990).

4

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

5

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

WilliamA. Couch, supranote 3.

6

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

7 M.J., Docket No. 18-0605 (issued April12, 2019).

8 The Board notes that it is unnecessary to consider the evidence appellant submitted prior to the issuance of 

OWCP’s June 7, 2021 merit decision because the Board considered that evidence in its April 21, 2022 decision. 

Findings made in prior Board decisions are res judicataabsent further review by OWCP under section 8128 of FECA. 

C.D., Docket No. 19-1973 (issued May 21, 2020); M.D., Docket No. 20-0007 (issued May 13, 2020).
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 11, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this decision of the Board.

Issued: November 30, 2022

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