United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, VA 

MEDICAL CENTER, Seattle, WA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0951

Issued: December 15, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On July 9, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 21, 2023 nonmerit decision 

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

assigned Docket No. 23-0951.1

On August 3, 2020 appellant, then a 49-year-old nurse, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form 

CA-1) alleging that on July 27, 2020 she sustained right wrist sprain when repositioning a patient 

in bed while in the performance of duty. OWCP initially accepted her claim for right wrist strain, 

later expanding the acceptance of her claim to include right wrist sprain, complex tear of the 

triangular fibrocartilage of the right wrist, right wrist and hand subluxation, right elbow lateral 

epicondylitis, and right shoulder adhesive capsulitis. It paid appellant on the supplemental rolls 

for intermittent disability commencing March 8, 2021.

By decision dated October 5, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation for 

disability from work commencing July 26, 2021. It found that she was offered a temporary lightduty assignment beginning July 26, 2021, but she refused the assignment. OWCP found that the 

light-duty assignment accommodated appellant’s contemporaneous work restrictions. It also 

1 The Board notes that, following the April 21, 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

found that she would be paid compensation for the difference between her rate of pay in the lightduty position and her date-of-injury position.

Appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings 

and Review. The hearing was held on February 15, 2022. By decision dated March 30, 2022, the 

hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s October 4, 2021 decision.

OWCP continued to receive medical evidence. 

On March 31, 2023 OWCP scanned into iFECS appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

its March 30, 2022 decision. With her request, appellant enclosed a 15-pagememorandum arguing 

that OWCP had erred in its March 30, 2022 decision, as it contained flawed findings of fact and 

law. She stated that the decision erroneously concluded that work restrictions from a physician 

would not have prevented her from using two hands to wash; that the offer of limited duty was not 

in accordance with OWCP requirements; that OWCP had ignored the “personal comfort doctrine”; 

that the offer of limited duty was subject to conditions not fulfilled by the employing 

establishment; that OWCP had incorrectly overlooked the medical necessity of provision of travel 

arrangements due to her conditions; that OWCP had improperly found that there was no 

corroborating evidence supporting her claim that she was not provided with assistance; that the 

information provided to OWCP by the employing establishment were provided with no supporting 

evidence; and that the offer of limited duty was misleading for someone unfamiliar with the 

employing establishment’s policies, protocols, and setting. Appellant submitted evidence on 

reconsideration including breakroom protocols; e-mail exchanges regarding her limited, light-duty 

assignment offer; an April 2019 memorandum regarding low-level standardization for noncritical 

reusable medical equipment; a March 29, 2021 memorandum regarding the donning and doffing 

of personal protective equipment for special isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic; an 

April 27, 2021 note detailing the employing establishment’s COVID-19 emergency operations 

standard operating procedures; a notification of personnel action dated August 6, 2021; January 4, 

2022 COVID-19 personal protective equipment recommendations; and a May 23, 2023 work 

capacity evaluation for musculoskeletal conditions (Form OWCP-5c).

By decision dated April 21, 2023, OWCP summarily denied appellant’s request for 

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

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 requirements of FECA and its implementing regulations. 2 Section 8124(a) of FECA 

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

payment of compensation.3 Its regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 provide that the decision of the 

Director of OWCP shall contain findings of fact and a statement of reasons. 4 As well, OWCP’s 

2 D.R., Docket No. 21-1229 (issued July 6, 2022); M.D., Docket No. 20-0868 (issued April28, 2021); T.P., Docket 

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

3

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.126.
3

procedures provide that the reasoning behind its 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. 5

In support of her request for reconsideration, appellant submitted a 15-page memorandum 

arguing that OWCP had erred in its March 30, 2022 decision, as it contained flawed findings of 

fact and law. She also submitted evidence as outlined above. In denying appellant’s

reconsideration request, OWCP failed to analyze whether this argument and evidence submitted 

on reconsideration was sufficient to demonstrate clear evidence of error. It did not address the 

argument and evidence submitted in support of her reconsideration request.6

The Board findsthat OWCP failed to properly explain the findings with respect to the issue 

presented so that appellant could understand the basis for the decision. The Board will, therefore, 

set aside OWCP’s April 21, 2023 decision and remand the case for findings of fact and a statement 

of reasons, to be followed by an appropriate decision regarding her reconsideration request. 7 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 21, 2023 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: December 15, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

6 M.D., Docket No. 20-0868 (issued April 28, 2021); see also Order Remanding Case, C.G., Docket No. 20-0051 

(issued June 29, 2020); R.T., Docket No. 19-0604 (issued September 13, 2019); R.C., Docket No. 16-0563 (issued 

May 4, 2016).

7

See Order Remanding Case, D.R., supra note 2; T.P., Docket No. 19-1533 (issued April 30, 2020).