United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

W.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Los Angeles, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1432

Issued: February 23, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On September 30, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 12, 2021 merit 

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

Boards assigned Docket No. 21-1432.

On July 9, 2021 appellant, then a 54-year-old city carrier assistant 1, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed a right shoulder condition due to factors of 

his federal employment, including falling while delivering mail on October 3, 2020. He explained 

that he immediately reported his injury to his supervisor and was subsequently diagnosed with 

retracted full-thickness tears of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons of the right shoulder 

via a December 30, 2020 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. On the reverse side of the 

claim form, appellant’s supervisor noted that medical attention was offered on the date of the 

incident, but that appellant preferred to seek treatment from his medical provider. Appellant 

stopped work for three weeks following the October 3, 2020 fall. 

1 The Board notes that, following the August 12, 2021 decision, OWCP and the Board 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 

additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

Appellant provided a narrative statement and recounted that on October 3, 2020 he fell in 

the street while delivering mail and landed onto his outstretched right arm, injuring his right 

shoulder. He sought medical treatment on that date. Appellant alleged that his right shoulder 

injury prevented him from performing his regular job duties.

In an October 3, 2020 note, Deina Stewart, a physician assistant, reported examining

appellant after he tripped and fell on concrete on that date and diagnosed a right elbow abrasion. 

She noted that he also reported right shoulder pain. 

Dr. Kevin T. Lee, a family practitioner, diagnosed tear of the right rotator cuff on 

January 4, 2021.

In a note dated May 4, 2021, Dr. George Hatch, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

described the events of October 3, 2020 noting that appellant was delivering mail when appellant

tripped and fell onto his outstretched right arm, injuring his face and damaging his glasses, and 

sustaining abrasions to his right arm. He also diagnosed right rotator cuff avulsion injury/proximal 

humerus fracture secondary to fall with retracted irreparable supraspinatus and infraspinatus and 

significant shoulder dysfunction. Dr. Hatch opined that these injuries were secondary to the 

October 3, 2020 fall and were work-related injuries.

In a July 12, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies in his 

claim. It requested additional factual and medical evidence and provided a questionnaire for his 

completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. No additional evidence was received.

By decision dated August 12, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that he had 

not established that the injury or event(s) occurred, as alleged. It noted that he had not provided

factual or medical documentation in support of his claim. Consequently, OWCP found that 

appellant had not met the requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

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

decision. 

Under FECA, although it is the employee’s burden of proof to establish his or her claim, 

OWCP also has a responsibility in the development of the factual evidence.2 It is the duty of the 

claims examiner to develop a claim based on the facts at hand and not solely on the basis of the 

type of claim form filed.3 The Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual provides that, if, upon review 

of the incorrect form, the actual benefits claimed by the claimant can be determined, OWCP should 

convert the claim to the correct type and notify the claimant and employing establishment via letter 

2 T.V., Docket No. 20-1494 (issued June 22, 2022); G.S., Docket No. 16-0908 (issued October 26, 2017); Willie A. 

Dean, 40 ECAB 1208, 1212 (1989); Willie James Clark, 39 ECAB 1311, 1318-19 (1988).

3

Id.
3

that the claim has been converted to a different type of injury than what was originally claimed 

and explain the reasons for the conversion.4

OWCP appears to have sought to develop appellant’s claim as one for an occupational 

disease rather than one for a traumatic injury. Appellant indicated an occupational disease by 

filing a Form CA-2, but his description of the injury on his claim form, his narrative statement, his 

supervisor’s statement, and the medical evidence of record provided establishes a claim for a 

traumatic injury. Consequently, OWCP should have converted the claim to a traumatic injury and 

then notified him and the employing establishment of the conversion.

Furthermore, in the case of William A. Couch,

5

the Board held that, when adjudicating a 

claim, OWCP is obligated to consider and address 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 appellant’s narrative 

statement and the medical reports from Drs. Hatch and Lee were not referenced or reviewed by 

OWCP in its August 12, 2021 decision.6 It is crucial that OWCP consider 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

Therefore, the case shall be remanded for conversion of the claim to one for a traumatic 

injury followed by appropriate notice provided to appellant. On remand, OWCP shall also 

consider and address all evidence of record and, following any further development as deemed 

necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision.

4 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Development of Claims, Chapter 2.800.3c(2)(a) 

(June 2011); id.

5 41 ECAB 548 (1990); see also M.M., Docket No. 22-0411 (issued October 7, 2022); R.D., Docket No. 17-1818 

(issued April 3, 2018).

6 See M.M.., id.; J.N., Docket No. 21-0086 (issued May 17, 2021); 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 

William A. Couch, supra note 5.
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 12, 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: February 23, 2023

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board