United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, HONEA PATH POST 

OFFICE, Honea Path, SC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0536

Issued: October 3, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On March 10, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 16, 2022 merit 

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

Boards assigned Docket No. 23-0536.

On August 23, 2022 appellant, then a 56-year-old mailrural carrier,filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 12, 2022 she sustained multiple injuries, including 

right lower extremity pain and swelling and neck, shoulders, and back soreness when she hit her 

right foot at the top step of the dock causing her to fall while in the performance of duty. She did 

not stop work. 

In an August 12, 2022 work status report, Daniela Player, a physician assistant, diagnosed

right knee internal derangement and back strain due to an injury that occurred that same date.

An August 12, 2022 diagnostic study of the right knee provided an impression of mild 

degenerative disc disease. A September 23, 2022 diagnostic study of the right knee provided an 

impression of no acute fracture and mild degenerative changes. 

In a September 29, 2022 medical note, Ms. Player documented treatment for appellant’s 

injury. In a work status report of even date, she diagnosed right knee pain and provided work 

restrictions. 
2

In a November 17, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence required and provided a 

questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the requested 

evidence.

On December 16, 2022 OWCP received a December 6, 2022 urgent care note containing 

diagnoses. 

By decision dated December 16, 2022, OWCP accepted that the August 12, 2022 

employment incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the medical evidence of record did not contain a medical diagnosis in connection with 

the accepted August 12, 2022 employment incident. Consequently, OWCP found that she had not 

met the requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

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 and address all evidence properly submitted by a claimant and received by 

OWCP before the final decision is issued.

In its December 16, 2022 decision, OWCP failed to consider the December 6, 2022 urgent 

care note, received on December 16, 2022 which addressed whether appellant had a diagnosed 

condition in connection with the accepted employment incident. As such, it failed to follow its 

procedures by properly reviewing and discussing all of the evidence of record. 2 It is crucial that 

OWCP consider and address all evidence relevant to the subject matter properly submitted prior 

to the issuance of its final decision, as the Board’s decisions are final with regard to the subject 

matter appealed.3 This principle applies with regard to evidence received by OWCP the same day 

a final decision is issued.4

The Board thus finds that this case is not in posture for a decision as OWCP did not consider

and address the evidence submitted by appellant in support of her claim for compensation. 5 On 

1

41 ECAB 548 (1990); see also Order Remanding Case, A.D., Docket No. 22-0519 (issued January 11, 2023);

A.B., Docket No. 22-0179 (issued June 28, 2022);S.H., Docket No. 19-1582 issued May26, 2020); R.D., Docket No. 

17-1818 (issued April 3, 2018).

2 All evidence submitted should be reviewed and discussed in the decision. Evidence received following 

development that lacks probative values should also be acknowledged. Whenever possible, the evidence should be 

referenced by author and date. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Denials, Chapter 

2.1401.5b(2) (November 2012).

3

See A.D., supra note 1;A.B.,supra note 1; C.S., Docket No. 18-1760 (issued November 25, 2019);Yvette N. 

Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004); see also William A. Couch, supra note 1.

4

See T.B., Docket No. 21-0448 (issued September 27, 2021); Order Remanding Case, S.S., Docket No. 19-1737 

(issued April 7, 2020); Order Remanding Case, 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 an OWCP decision must be reviewed).

5

See A.B., supra note 1; S.H., supra note 1; V.C., Docket No. 16-0694 (issued August 19, 2016).
3

remand, OWCP shall review all evidence of record and, following any further development it 

deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 16, 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: October 3, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board