United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.J., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, RED RIVER 

ARMY DEPOT, Texarkana, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-1002

Issued: November 17, 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 July 21, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 30, 2023 nonmerit decision 

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

assigned the appeal Docket No. 23-1002.

1

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

in the Board’s prior decisions and orders are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts 

are as follows.

On December 2, 2013 appellant, then a 48-year-old forklift operator, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained a back injury and a detached retina due to 

factors of his federal employment including driving over potholes. He noted that he first became 

1 The Board notes that, following the June 30, 2023 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence with her 

appeal to the Board. 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. 14-1028 (issued September 17, 2014); Docket No. 15-795 (issued June 15, 2015); Docket Nos. 16-534 

and 15-0795 (issued April 11, 2016).
2

aware of his conditions and realized their relationship to his federal employment on April 11, 2012. 

Appellant retired from the employing establishment on April 8, 2013. 

By decision dated January 31, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that he had not established the implicated factors of his employment; therefore, he had not 

met the requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA. On February 21, 2014 appellant 

requested reconsideration. By decision dated March 18, 2014, OWCP denied reconsideration of 

the merits of his claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). On April 1, 2014 appellant appealed to the 

Board. By decision dated September 17, 2014,3the Board affirmed these decisions. On 

December 31, 2014 appellant again requested reconsideration before OWCP. By decision dated 

February 11, 2015, OWCP denied reconsideration of the merits of his claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a). On February 18, 2015 appellant appealed to the Board. By decision dated June 15, 

2015,4the Board affirmed OWCP’s February 11, 2015 decision. On January 28, 2016 appellant 

again appealed OWCP’s February 11, 2015 decision. The Board, by order dated April 11, 2016,5

dismissed the appeal in Docket No. 16-0534, finding that OWCP had not issued a final adverse

decision since the Board affirmed its February 11, 2015 decision. The Board also dismissed 

appellant’s petition for reconsideration of its February 11, 2015 decision issued under Docket No. 

15-0795, as untimely filed. On February 22, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration. OWCP, 

by decision dated June 14, 2022, denied his request for reconsideration, finding that it was 

untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. 

On April 5, 2023 OWCP received an April 3, 2023 letter, wherein appellant requested 

reconsideration of the June 14, 2022 decision. 

In support of his reconsideration request, appellant submitted additional evidence. In a 

December 21, 2014 letter, Dr. Roshan Sharma, a Board-certified physiatrist, noted appellant’s 

significant cervical and lumbar spine, eye conditions, and physical restrictions, and opined that 

appellant was permanently totally disabled from work due to his conditions and restrictions. In a 

March 25, 2023 prescription, he ordered appellant to medically retire from work. 

In a June 15, 2018 report, Dr. Solomon C. Mogbo, an internist, provided range of motion 

measurements for the elbows, shoulders, hands, wrists, knees, hips, ankles, and feet, and findings 

on testing of deep tendon reflexes. On February 7, 2023 he reported appellant’s vital signs and 

active conditions, including blind left eye, and current medications. 

An October 26, 2020 letter by Caitlin McVoy, an audiologist, noted a history that appellant 

first noted hearing difficulty after a work incident that caused multiple injuries, and diagnosed left 

ear hearing loss that was made in her office in April 2019, and indicated that a hearing aid was 

prescribed at that time. She explained that a hearing aid was prescribed due to a moderate 

sensorineural hearing loss in his left ear.

3 Docket No. 14-1028 (issued September 17, 2014).

4 Docket No. 15-795 (issued June 15, 2015).

5 Docket Nos. 16-534 and 15-0795 (issued April 11, 2016).
3

A November 14, 2022 progress note by Dr. Marco H. Ji, an ophthalmologist, provided 

assessments of open-angle glaucoma suspect; secondary glaucoma due to combination 

mechanisms, left, indeterminate stage; retinal detachment, old, total/subtotal, left; and 

neurotrophic keratopathy, left eye. 

A January 31, 2023 after visit summary from Jones Eye Clinic provided diagnoses of 

vitreous detachment, right; floater vitreous, right; changes in vision; primary hypertension; and 

retinal detachment, old, total/subtotal, left.

A Notification of Personnel Action (Standard Form (SF) 50-B) dated April 11, 2013, 

indicated that appellant resigned from the employing establishment due to medical reasons, 

effective April 8, 2013. 

In letters dated October 28, 2013, the Office of Personnel Management informed appellant 

that his application for disability retirement had been approved because he was found to be 

disabled from his forklift operator position due to thoracic spine degenerative disc disease and 

total retinal detachment of the left eye.

By decision dated June 30, 2023, OWCP denied appellant’s April 5, 2023 request for 

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

It noted, “We reviewed [appellant’s] statement dated [April 3, 2023] which includes statements of 

your employment history and your experience filing a claim. However, the statement does not 

include any clear explanation or argument of how the [June 15, 2015] decision was in error.”

The Board, having duly considered the matter, finds that this case is not in posture for 

decision.

Section 8124(a) of the Federal Employees’Compensation Act6(FECA) and section 10.126 

of the implementing regulations7require that final decisions of OWCP contain findings of fact and 

a statement of reasons. The Board has held 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 The Board finds that OWCP’s June 30, 2023 decision is incomplete

as it did not make any findings regarding the medical and factual evidence appellant submitted.9 

Because the June 30, 2023 decision does not fully explain the basis for the denial of his request 

for reconsideration or the findings of fact reached therein, the Board finds that OWCP has not 

6

5 U.S.C. § 8124.

7

20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

8 Order Remanding Case, L.R.,Docket No. 15-0235 (issued December 21, 2015); Patrick Michael Duffy, 43 ECAB 

280 (1991); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5 (February 2013).

9

See Order Remanding Case, R.S., Docket No. 23-0038 (issued June 15, 2023); Order Remanding Case, L.G., 

Docket No. 23-0282 (issued May 26, 2023); Order Remanding Case, S.G., Docket No. 22-1136 (issued 

January 17, 2023).
4

fulfilled its responsibility under section 8124 of FECA and section 10.126 of its implementing 

regulations.10

Accordingly, the case must be remanded to OWCP for a proper decision which includes 

findings of fact, and a clear and precise statement regarding appellant’s April 5, 2023 request for 

reconsideration.11 Following further development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue an 

appropriate decision.12 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 30, 2023 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded to OWCP for further proceedings 

consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: November 17, 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

10 Order Remanding Case, P.W., Docket No. 21-1101 (issued March 30, 2023); Order Remanding Case, X.F., 

Docket No. 22-0045 (issued April 14, 2023).

11 See supra note 8.

12 The record reveals that OWCP notified appellant on April 23, 2018 that it would combine the current file, OWCP 

File No. xxxxxx519, with OWCP File No. xxxxxx252. However, the Board notes that this has not been done.