United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Birmingham, AL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1372

Issued: January 25, 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 September 29, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 1, 2022 merit 

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

Boards docketed the appeal as No. 22-1372.

On July 29, 2021 appellant, then a 32-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on June 11, 2021 he injured his right shoulder when he 

picked up a package to load in a hamper while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on 

June 11, 2021. OWCP accepted the claim for right shoulder strain. On October 20, 2021 appellant 

underwent an arthroscopic superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) tear repair of the right 

shoulder, and a right subacromial decompression with bursectomy. OWCP paid appellant wageloss compensation on the supplemental rolls beginning January 1, 2022. Appellant returned to 

work on January 31, 2022.

1 The Board notes that following the August 1, 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

In a March 9, 2022 note, Dr. Jeffrey Hayden Goodman, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, found that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). He reported 

that appellant was neurovascularly intact in his upper extremity with minimal shoulder pain. 

Dr. Goodman found 140 degrees of forward flexion, 140 degrees of abduction, 30 degrees of 

extension, 60 degrees of internal rotation, and 60 degrees of external rotation. He applied the sixth 

edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment

(A.M.A., Guides)

2

to these range of motion findings, and determined that appellant had eight 

percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity.

On May 18, 2022 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a schedule 

award.

In a development letter dated June 2, 2022, OWCP requested that appellant’s treating 

physician provide a medical report, which included an impairment rating utilizing the sixth edition 

of the A.M.A., Guides. It afforded him 30 days to submit the requested information.

By decision dated August 1, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim, 

finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish permanent impairment of 

a scheduled member or function of the body, warranting a schedule award. No medical evidence 

was referenced.

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

decision and must be remanded to OWCP for further development. 

In the case of William A. Couch,

3

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.

In its August 1, 2022 decision, OWCP failed to review the March 9, 2022 report from

Dr. Goodman. 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 properly submitted to OWCP be 

considered and addressed.4 For this reason, the case will be remanded to OWCP to enable it to 

properly consider and address all the evidence submitted at the time of the August 1, 2022 decision. 

Following this, and other such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue a 

de novo decision regarding appellant’s schedule award claim. Accordingly,

2 A.M.A., Guides(6th ed. 2009).

3

41 ECAB 548 (1990); T.F., Docket No. 22-0015 (issued May 16, 2022); F.A., Docket No. 20-1324 (issued 

March 1, 2021); T.G.,Docket No. 19-1930 (issued January 8, 2021).

4

See T.F., id.: G.A., Docket No. 19-1080 (issued January 2, 2020); T.J.,Docket No. 14-1854 (issued February 3, 

2015); J.J.,Docket No. 12-1062 (issued December 12, 2012); William McKennon, 51 ECAB 145 (1999); 45 ECAB 

439 (1994). See also C.S., Docket No. 18-1760 (issued November 25, 2019); YvetteN. Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004); 

WilliamA. Couch, id.
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 1, 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: January 25, 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