United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

MICHAEL WALTON, Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION,

San Diego, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0395

Issued: June 1, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On January 20, 2022 appellantfiled a timely appealfroma January 19,2022merit decision

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

assigned Docket No. 22-0395.1

On December 11, 2021 appellant, then a 56-year-old border agent, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 11, 2021 he sustained knee and ankle injuries when

he caught his foot on a road marker and fell on his knee and ankle while in the performance of 

duty. He did not stop work.

1 The Board notes that, following the January 19, 2022 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP. 

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 beforeOWCP 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 development letter dated December 14, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim and advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to 

establish his claim. It afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

On January 19, 2022 OWCP received evidence. In an attending physician’s report, Part B 

of an authorization for examination and/or treatment (Form CA-16), dated January 5, 2022,

Dr. Robert Power, a Board-certified internist, related that appellant sustained left knee and ankle 

injuries on December 11, 2021 and indicated that he was first examined on the date of injury. He 

diagnosed a left knee contusion and left ankle pain and checked a box marked “Yes” indicating 

that they were causally related to the reported incident.

On January 10, 2022 appellant was seen by Dr. Kathy Head, a Board-certified occupational 

medicine specialist, with ongoing complaints of left knee and ankle pain. Dr. Head related that on

December 11, 2021 he tripped over a road marker after chasing a suspect, which caused him to 

flex his ankle down and back and fell onto his left knee. She diagnosed a left ankle sprain, left 

knee medial meniscus tear and ganglion cysts.

By decision dated January 19, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that he did not submit any medical evidence to establish a diagnosed medical condition 

causally related to the accepted December 11, 2021 employment incident. It concluded, therefore, 

that the requirements had not been met 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 

decision. 

In the case of William A. Couch2the 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 January 5, 2022 report from Dr. Powers and January 10, 

2022 progress reports from Dr. Head were not referenced or reviewed by OWCP in its January 19, 

2022 decision.3 It is crucial that OWCP addresses 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. 4 

This principle applies with regard to evidence received by OWCP the same day a final decision is 

issued.5 The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision as OWCP did not review the 

above-noted evidence in its January 19, 2022 decision.6 On remand, OWCP shall review all 

2

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

3

See J.N., Docket No. 21-0086 (issued May 17, 2021); C.D.,Docket No. 20-0168 (issued March 5, 2020).

4

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

WilliamA. Couch, supranote 2.

5

See T.B., Docket No. 21-0448 (issued September 27, 2021); S.S., Docket No. 19-1737 (issued April7, 2020); J.S., 

Docket No. 16-0505 (issued July 18, 2016); Linda Johnson, 45 ECAB 439 (1994) (evidence received the same day as 

the issuance of OWCP’s decision must be reviewed).

6

See V.C., Docket No. 16-0694 (issued August19, 2016).
3

evidence of record and following this and any other such further development as deemed

necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision.

7

 Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 19, 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: June 1, 2022

Washington, D.C.

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

7 B.N., Docket No. 17-0787 (issued July 6, 2018).