United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.G., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Fresno, CA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0011

Issued: June 14, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On October 3, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 13, 2022 nonmerit decision 

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

assigned Docket No. 23-0011.1

This case has been previously before the Board.2 The facts and circumstances of the case 

as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts 

are as follows.

On June 17, 2016 appellant, then a 53-year-old clerk (developmental), filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed lower back pain and right leg 

1 The Board notes that following the July 13, 2022 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 additional 

evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.

2 Docket No. 19-1889 (issued April 14, 2021).
2

radiculitis due to factors of her federal employment. She noted that she first became aware of her 

condition and its relation to her federal employment on March 19, 2015.3

In the last merit decision dated August 1, 2018, OWCP found that the medical evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish causal relationship between appellant’s diagnosed back 

condition and the accepted factors of her federal employment. 

On April 9, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s August 1, 2018 decision. 

By decision dated April 16, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

On September 10, 2019 appellant filed timely appeal with the Board. By decision dated 

April 14, 2021, the Board affirmed OWCP’s April 16, 2019 decision denying appellant’s request 

for reconsideration.

4

OWCP continued to receive medical evidence covering the period July 7, 2014 through

January 29, 2020. 

On September 14, 2021 OWCP received additional medical evidence including an 

October 21, 2019 intake functional status summary; progress notes dated March 18, 2021 from

Dr. Matthew McCutheon, a chiropractor; and a June 8, 2021 progress note from Dr. Mark Menniti 

Stecker, a Board-certified neurologist. 

On October 22, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. In support of her request for 

reconsideration,she submitted a May 27, 2021 report from Dr. Sheena Edmonds, an osteopath and 

Board-certified family practitioner; reports dated September 30 and October 5, 2021 from

Dr. Lanny Crockett, a chiropractor; and office visit notes dated September 23, 2021 from

Dr. Asma Tariq, Board-certified in family medicine. 

In a letter dated January 18, 2022, OWCP informed appellant that it had received her letter 

requesting reconsideration on October 22, 2021. However, it noted that it was unclear which 

decision or issues she was requesting OWCP to reconsider. Thus, OWCP advised appellant that 

no further action would be taken on her October 22, 2021 request.

OWCP subsequently received progress notes dated October 27, 2021 from Dr. Loveneet 

Singh, a Board-certified neurologist, interpreting an electromyography (EMG). It also received 

an unsigned neurology consultation report dated February 16, 2022. 

On June 28, 2022 appellant again requested reconsideration of its April 16, 2019 decision. 

By decision dated July13, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration, 

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

3 Appellant resigned from the employment effective May 17, 2015. 

4

Id. 
3

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision. 

OWCP summarily denied appellant’s request for reconsideration without complying with 

the review requirement of FECA and its implementing regulations.

5

 Section 8124(a) of FECA 

provides that OWCP shall determine and make a finding of facts and make an award for or against 

payment of compensation.

6

 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.

7

 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.

8

OWCP, in its July 13, 2022 decision, did not mention or address any of the medical 

evidence it received dated July 11, 2015through October 27, 2021 subsequent to its April 16, 2019

decision denying appellant’s request for reconsideration under section 8128(a). It failed to analyze 

this evidence to determine whether it was sufficient to demonstrate clear evidence of error. The 

Board finds that OWCP failed to properly explain the findings with respect to the issue presented 

so that appellant could understand the basis for the decision, i.e., whether she had demonstrated 

clear evidence that OWCP’s last merit decision was incorrect.

9

The Board will therefore set aside OWCP’s July 13, 2022 decision and remand the case for 

findings of fact and a statement of reasons, to be followed by an appropriate decision on appellant’s 

reconsideration request.

10

 Accordingly, 

5

See Order Remanding Case, C.G., Docket No. 20-0051 (issued June 29, 2020); Order Remanding Case, T.P., 

Docket No. 19-1533 (issued April 30, 2020); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b).

6

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).

7

20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

8 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).

9 T.T., Docket No. 21-1278 (issued March 29, 2022); M.G., Docket No. 21-0893 (issued December 27, 2021); R.C., 

Docket No. 21-0466 (issued February 16, 2022).

10 See Order Remanding Case, D.R., Docket No. 21-1229 (issued July 6, 2022); T.P.,supra note 5;see also 20 

C.F.R. § 10.607.
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 13, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs isset aside. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with 

this order of the Board.

Issued: June 14, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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