United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CLEVELAND POST 

OFFICE, Cleveland, MS, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0851

Issued: September 15, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Stephanie N. Leet, Esq., for the appellant1

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 May 12, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an April 28, 2022 

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

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0851.

On February 2, 2012 appellant, then a 37-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 24, 2012 she sustained a cervical injury when 

her employing establishment vehicle was rear ended by another vehicle, while in the performance 

of duty.

By decision dated March 13, 2012, OWCP accepted that the alleged incident occurred, but 

denied appellant’s claim, finding that she had not established a diagnosed medical condition or 

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

injury in connection with the accepted January 24, 2012 employment incident. It concluded, 

therefore, that she had not met the requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

On May 7, 2013 OWCP received appellant’s May 4, 2013 request for reconsideration of 

the March 13, 2012 decision denying her claim. She indicated therein that the request was “in 

response” to OWCP’s March 13, 2012 decision. Appellant added, “Since a timely claim for 

reconsideration was filed, I [am] including new evidence that should negate your denial decision.” 

She submitted medical evidence in support of her claim.

On October 16, 2013 OWCP received a June 11, 2012 request for reconsideration from 

appellant’s then-counsel.

By decision dated February 5, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration, 

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

OWCP continued to receive medical evidence including progress notes dated 

September 22, 2014 from Dr. Michael H. Carter, Jr., an otolaryngologist, diagnosing dysphagia 

and nasal fracture; a January 26, 2015 order and referral for physical therapy from Dr. Mark D. 

Anderson, a Board-certified psychiatrist and neurologist; a February 26, 2015 physical therapy 

initial evaluation noting diagnoses of back and neck pain, cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, 

muscle spasms, and cervicalgia and lumbago; and physical therapy notes dated from 

December 26, 2015.

On March 12, 2015 OWCP received an authorization for examination and/or treatment 

(Form CA-16) completed and signed by the postmaster on January 24, 2012.

In a May 11, 2015 report, Dr. Anderson noted that appellant had been evaluated for leg and 

left-sided arm pain following a 2012 motor vehicle accident (MVA). He reported that diagnostic 

tests demonstrated spinal nerve degenerative change, likely resulting in her pain.

On June 17, 2015 OWCP received appellant’s undated request that her claim be 

“reopened.”

In a February 1, 2021 report, Dr. John W. Ellis, a physician Board-certified in family 

medicine, noted appellant’s history of injury and medical treatment. Appellant’s physical 

examination findings were provided. Dr. Ellis diagnosed concussion, brain injury with complex 

integrated cerebral function, neck muscle tendon strain, deranged neck discs, bilateral brachial 

plexus impingement, bilateral cervical radiculopathy, right shoulder and deltoid muscle traumatic 

arthritis and tendinitis, resolved right forearm contusion, bilateral L4-5 and S1 nerve impingement 

into the legs, and deranged back discs, which he attributed to the accepted January 24, 2012

employment injury. He opined that appellant had been temporarily disabled since January 25, 

2012 due to the January 24, 2012 MVA. Dr. Ellis noted that appellant attempted to return to work, 

but was not provided a job with any accommodations for her injuries. He concluded that the 

evidence established a causal relationship between her diagnosed conditions, the accepted 

January 24, 2012 employment injury and resulting disability.

On January 31, 2022 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration.
3

By decision dated April 28, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s reconsideration request, 

finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. It explained 

that her counsel provided no cogent arguments establishing that the March 13, 2012 decision was 

erroneous based on the evidence of record at the time of the decision. 

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that the 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, on reconsideration appellant submitted 

additional evidence including medical evidence from Drs. Carter, Anderson, and Ellis, as well as

physical therapy reports. OWCP, however, did not address and review this evidence in its 

April 28, 2022 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 address all relevant evidence received prior to the issuance of its final decision.4 The Board 

finds that this case is not in posture for decision, as OWCP did not consider the above-noted 

evidence in its April 28, 2022 decision.

5

 On remand following any further development as deemed 

necessary, OWCP shall issue an appropriate decision.6

2

41 ECAB 548, 553(1990);see Order Remanding Case, K.B., Docket No. 20-1320 (issued February 8, 2021);see 

also R.D., Docket No. 17-1818 (issued April3, 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 2.1401.5b(2) (November 2012).

4 Order Remanding Case, E.D., Docket No. 20-0620 (issued November 18, 2020);see Order Remanding Case, 

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

Couch,supranote 2.

5 Order Remanding Case, D.S., Docket No. 20-0589 (issued November 10, 2020);see Order Remanding Case, 

V.C., Docket No. 16-0694 (issued August 19, 2016).

6 The employing establishment completed and signed a Form CA-16 on January 24, 2012. A completed Form CA16 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);

J.G., Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 2018); TracyP. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 28, 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: September 15, 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