United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ENCINO PARK POST 

OFFICE, Encino Ledge, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1231

Issued: January 13, 2023

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 August 1, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 4, 2022 merit decision 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-1231.

On May 16, 2016 appellant, then a 63-year-old rural letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 12, 2016 she injured her back, hands, and left shoulder 

when she fell backward while in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for lower 

back strain, right wrist sprain, fracture of the lower end of left radius and sprain of left shoulder 

joint. It subsequently expanded the acceptance of the claim to include a left carpal tunnel 

syndrome. Appellant underwent an open reduction and internal fixation of her wrist on 

July 21, 2016. OWCP paid wage-loss compensation benefits on its supplemental rolls from 

July 21, 2016 through September 12, 2019. Appellant stopped work on November 22, 2021. 

1 The Board notes that,following the February4, 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

On December 8, 2021 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for temporary 

total disability from work for the period November 22 through December 3, 2021. She submitted 

a November 21, 2021 duty status report (Form CA-17) and a November 21, 2021 work status form 

report from Dr. Jeffrey J. Munoz, a Board-certified family practitioner, which indicated that she

was disabled from work for the period November 22 through December 20, 2021. 

In a December 14, 2021 development letter, OWCP noted its receipt of appellant’s CA-7 

form claiming compensation effective November 22, 2021 and continuing and that the evidence 

of record indicated that she had not returned to work following her November 22, 2021 work 

stoppage despite a light/limited-duty assignment being available within her medical restrictions 

with the employing establishment for the period of claimed lost time. It advised appellant that she 

should submit medical evidence which contained a well-rationalized medical explanation with 

objective findings which supported disability or a worsening of her condition such that she was no 

longer able to perform the duties of her light/limited-duty assignment when she stopped work on 

November 22, 2021. OWCP afforded her 30 days to submit the requested information. 

OWCP received an additional Form CA-7 claim for disability from work for the period 

December 4 through 20, 2021 along with medical reports from Dr. Munoz dated December 20, 

2021 through January 3, 2022. 

On January 19, 2022 OWCP also received a January 14, 2022 narrative report from

Dr. Munoz. Dr. Munoz noted the history of the May 12, 2016 work-related injury, that appellant

had been able to return to her job as a mail carrier with permanent restrictions of no lifting or 

carrying more than 10 pounds. He indicated that when appellant was seen on November 21, 2021, 

she had a flareup in swelling, decreased motion due to swelling, pain, increased tingling and 

numbness and that, apparently, there was an increase in the volume of mail and packages before 

the visit. Dr. Munoz reported his examination findings and indicated that, due to those objective 

findings and subjective history, appellant was placed off work to stop use of her left hand other 

than for activities of daily living. He further offered an explanation as to why light-duty tasks 

would not have accomplished the desired result and why she was continued off work through

January 3, 2022, when he released her back to work with continued permanent restrictions of no 

lifting or carrying more than 10 pounds.

By decision dated February 4, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability from 

work for the period commencing November 22, 2021. 

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

decision. In the case of William A. Couch,

2

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 Dr. Munoz’ January 14, 2022 medical report was not referenced or reviewed 

2

41 ECAB 548 (1990); see also R.D., Docket No. 17-1818 (issued April3, 2018).
3

by OWCP in its February 4, 2022 decision.3 Its February 4, 2022 decision indicated that appellant 

did not provide a detailed medial narrative report from a medical doctor with objective findings as 

to how her work-related medical conditions worsened and that the medical reports received were 

last submitted on January 18, 2022. Dr. Munoz’ January 14, 2022 medical report was received on 

January 19, 2022, prior to the issuance of OWCP’s February 4, 2022 decision.

It is crucial that OWCP review 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. 4 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision as OWCP did not review and address 

the above-noted evidence in its February 4, 2022 decision.5 On remand OWCP shall review and 

address all evidence of record and, following any further development as it deems necessary, it 

shall issue a de novo decision. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 4, 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 13, 2023

Washington, DC

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

3

See N.M., Docket No. 21-0357 (issued September 30, 2022); C.D., Docket No. 20-0168 (issued March 5, 2020).

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

also WilliamA. Couch, supra note 2.

5 N.M., id.; V.C.,Docket No. 16-0694 (issued August 19, 2016).