United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

N.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Katy, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0357

Issued: September 30, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On January 4, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 17, 2020 merit 

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

Boards assigned Docket No. 21-0357.

This case has previously been before the Board.2 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

in the Board’s prior order are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as follows.

On November 15, 2018 appellant, then a 29-year-old postal worker, filed a notice of 

recurrence of disability claim (Form CA-2a) alleging that on October 26, 2018 she felt pain in her 

lower back from pulling pallets of mail on a pallet jack and constantly bending, separating mail, 

1 The Board notes that following the November 17, 2020 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 

evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.

2 Order Remanding Case,Docket No. 19-1825 (issued May 15, 2020).
2

and dropping tubs of mail.3 She indicated that the date of her original injury was on June 23, 2017, 

and that her back pain had been “on and off” since she returned to work. Appellant also noted that 

she was in an off-duty car accident on October 27, 2018. 

By decision dated April 5, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish that she sustained an injury in the performance of duty on 

October 26, 2018, as alleged.

On April 29, 2019 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review. In a June 10, 2019 letter, an OWCP hearing representative 

notified appellant that a telephonic hearing was scheduled for Friday, July 24, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. 

Eastern Standard Time (EST). Appellant did not appear for the hearing. 

By decision dated August 5, 2019, OWCP determined that appellant had abandoned her 

request for an oral hearing. 

Appellant filed an appeal with the Board on August 28, 2019. By order dated May 15, 

2020, the Board set aside the April 5 and August 5, 2019 decisions and remanded the case to 

OWCP to administratively combine OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx309 and xxxxxx594 and explain to 

appellant why it converted her claim to a traumatic injury claim. Following other such 

development, OWCP was to issue a de novo decision.4

Upon return of the case record OWCP administratively combined OWCP File Nos. 

xxxxxx309 and xxxxxx594, with the former serving as the master file number. 

In a July 27, 2020 development letter, OWCP advised appellant that her claim was 

converted into a new traumatic injury claim. In a July 28, 2020 development letter, it advised 

appellant of the deficiencies of her claim and instructed her as to the factual and medical evidence 

necessary to establish her claim. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit additional evidence 

and respond to its inquiries.

In an undated statement, appellant contended that supporting documents for her current 

claim were included under OWCP File No. xxxxxx309.

By decision dated November 17, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between 

appellant’s diagnosed cervical and lumbar conditions and the accepted October 26, 2018 

employment incident. It found that the relevant evidence from OWCP File No. xxxxxx309 

consisted of an October 30, 2018 medical report from Dr. Novarro C. Stafford, a family medicine 

specialist. OWCP, however, did not reference the medical reports dated March 26, April 3 and 

3 The notice of recurrence was originally filed under OWCP File No. xxxxxx309, which was a traumatic injury 

claim accepted by OWCP for a sprain of the ligaments of the lumbar spine. OWCP File No. xxxxxx309 has been 

administratively combined with the present claim, OWCP File No. xxxxxx594, with OWCP File No. xxxxxx309 

serving as the master file.

4

Id.
3

24, and July 17, 2019 by Dr. Stafford, who reported that appellant sustained an acute injury to her 

lumbar back at work on October 26, 2018. 

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that the case is not in posture for a 

decision. In the case of William A. Couch,

5

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.

While OWCP is not required to list every piece of evidence submitted to the record, the 

record is clear that the medical reports dated March 26, April 3 and 24, and July 17, 2019 by

Dr. Stafford were not referenced or reviewed by OWCP in its November 17, 2020 decision.6 

OWCP’s November 16, 2020 decision indicated that the relevant evidence from OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx309 consisted of the October 30, 2018 medical report from Dr. Stafford. It did not mention 

other reports from him. 

It is crucial that OWCP review and address all evidence received prior to the issuance of 

its final decision, as the Board’s decisions are final with regard to the subject matter appealed.7 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision as OWCP did not review and address 

the above-noted evidence in its November 17, 2020 decision.8 On remand OWCP shall review 

and address all evidence of record and,following any further development as it deems necessary, 

it shall issue a de novo decision.

5

41 ECAB 548 (1990); see also R.D., Docket No. 17-1818 (issued April3, 2018).

6

See C.D., Docket No. 20-0168 (issued March 5, 2020).

7

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

WilliamA. Couch, supranote 5.

8

See V.C., Docket No. 16-0694 (issued August19, 2016).
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 17, 2020 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 30, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, 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