United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU 

OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, Fort Washakie, WY, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0549

Issued: October 13, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On March 3, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 31, 2022 merit decision 

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

docketed the appeal as No. 22-0549.

On December 16, 2021 appellant, then a 34-year-old correctional officer, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 9, 2021, he strained his left shoulder and arm 

when he was struck by a combative inmate while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on 

December 10, 2021 and returned on December 13, 2021. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a December 10, 2021 report from Dr. Jeremy 

Newman, Board-certified in emergency medicine, who had treated him for a shoulder sprain. 

Dr. Newman prescribed pain medication and provided discharge instructions for a left shoulder 

sprain. In a prescription note of even date, Dr. Newman referred appellant for physical therapy 

treatment for a left shoulder strain.

In a development letter dated December 22, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to 

establish his claim. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. 
2

OWCP received Part B of an authorization for examination and/or treatment (Form 

CA-16), attending physician’s report, dated January 10, 2022, in which Dr. Demar D. Hill, who 

specializes in family medicine, noted that appellant reported being hit in the left shoulder by an 

inmate. Dr. Hill diagnosed a left shoulder strain. He checked a box marked “Yes” indicating that 

the diagnosed condition was caused or aggravated by the December 9, 2021 employment activity. 

By decision dated January 31, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the medical evidence submitted was insufficient to establish causal relationship 

between his diagnosed conditions and the accepted December 9, 2021 employment incident. 

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,

1

the 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. As detailed above, appellant submitted evidence from Dr. Hill. 

On Part B of a CA-16, dated January 10, 2022, Dr. Hill noted the history of injury and indicated a 

diagnosis of left shoulder strain. However, the record does not indicate that OWCP reviewed this 

additional evidence in its January 31, 2022 decision. It, thus, failed to follow its procedures by not 

considering all of the relevant evidence of record.2

As Board decisions are final with regard to the subject matter appealed, it is crucial that 

OWCP address all relevant evidence received prior to the issuance of its final decision. 3 For this 

reason, the case will be remanded to OWCP to address the above-noted evidence submitted at the 

time of its January 31, 2022 decision.4 Following this and other such further development as 

deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue an appropriate decision. Accordingly, 

1

41 ECAB 548 (1990);see K.B., Docket No. 20-1320 (issued February8, 2021);see also R.D., Docket No. 17-1818 

(issued April 3, 2018).

2 OWCP’s procedures provide that all evidence submitted should be reviewed and discussed in the decision. 

Evidence received following development that lacks probative value also should be acknowledged. Whenever 

possible, the evidence should be referenced by author and date. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, 

Initial Denials, Chapter 2.1401.5(b)(2) (November 2012).

3 E.D., Docket No. 20-0620 (issued November 18, 2020); see C.S., Docket No. 18-1760 (issued November 25, 

2019); YvetteN. Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004);see also WilliamA. Couch,supranote 1.

4 D.S., Docket No. 20-0589 (issued November 10, 2020);see V.C., Docket No. 16-0694 (issued August19, 2016).
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 31, 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.5

Issued: October 13, 2022

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 The Board notes that the employing establishment issued a Form CA-16 regarding the present claim. A completed 

Form CA-16 authorization may constitute a contract for payment of medical expenses to a medical facility or 

physician, when properly executed. The form creates a contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee 

directly, to pay for the cost of the examination or treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.300(c); V.S., Docket No. 20-1034 (issued November 25, 2020); J.G., Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 

2018); Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).