United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.K., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Fort Smith, AR, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1300

Issued: January 25, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On September 1, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 21, 2022 merit decision 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-1300.

On May 12, 2022 appellant, then a 43-year-old city delivery specialist, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 11, 2022 he sustained injuries to his left heel, 

ankle, and Achilles tendon when he was “charged at and had to evade a dog” while in the 

performance of duty. He stopped work on May 12, 2022.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a May 11, 2022 narrative statement in which 

he described the incident in further detail. An attending physician’s report, Part B of an 

authorization for examination and/or treatment (Form CA-16), dated May 16, 2022 from a nurse 

1 The Board notes that following the June 21, 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

practitioner noted left ankle pain and a possible acute fracture on x-ray. OWCP also received an 

illegible medical record dated May 19, 2022. 

In a May 19, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of his 

claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and provided a 

questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence.

In a May 23, 2022 response, appellant indicated that an x-ray of his left ankle showed a 

fracture and that his physician had referred him to an orthopedist specialist.

OWCP received a May 12, 2022 left ankle x-ray, which noted an impression of “arthritic 

change with calcification adjacent to lateral malleolus more likely from an old fracture 

superimposed acute injury not excluded”; as well as an undated x-ray with no identifying 

information.

On June 21, 2022 OWCP received a May 26, 2022 workers’ compensation verification 

intake form prepared by Dr. Tyler Carllee, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Carllee noted that on 

May 11, 2022 appellant was delivering mail when a dog ran toward him and he tried to get away 

twisting his ankle. OWCP also received a June 1, 2022 form report from Dr. Carllee, which 

diagnosed closed displaced fracture of lateral malleolus of left fibula, and ordered a short walking 

boot for appellant.

By decision dated June 21, 2022, OWCP accepted that the May 11, 2022 employment 

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

the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosis in connection with the 

accepted employment incident. OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been 

met to establish an injury as defined under 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,

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,

Dr. Carllee’s June 1, 2022 form report and his May 26, 2022 intake form were not considered or 

addressed by OWCP in its June 21, 2022 decision.3 

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 consider and address 

2

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

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.
3

the above-noted evidence in its June 21, 2022 decision.5 On remand, OWCP shall consider and 

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

shall issue a de novo decision.6 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 21, 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 25, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

5 N.M., supra note 3;V.C.,Docket No. 16-0694 (issued August19, 2016).

6 The Board also notes that the employing establishment issued a Form CA-16 authorization for examination or 

treatment of appellant’s May11, 2022 alleged injury. The Board notes that the employing establishment issued a

Form CA-16. A completedForm 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); J.G.,Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 2018);Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 

608 (2003).