United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.L., Appellant

and

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Glendale, AZ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0708

Issued: June 21, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

On April 8, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a March 2, 2022 

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

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0708. 

This case has been previously before the Board.2 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

in the Board’s prior decisions are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as 

follows.

On February 13, 2001 appellant, then a 39-year-old social insurance specialist claims 

representative, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2 Docket No. 21-0239 (issued December 1, 2021); Docket No. 17-1854 (issued March 20, 2018); Docket No. 11-

0527 (issued April 9, 2012).
2

tendinitis of the bilateral upper extremities when performing repetitive motions of keypunching, 

typing, and writing while in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for bilateral 

carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral lateral epicondylitis. It subsequently expanded the 

acceptance of appellant’s claim to include right wrist tenosynovitis and bilateral median nerve 

neuritis.

3

On March 27, 2013 Dr.Timothy Cavanaugh, an attending Board-certified ophthalmologist, 

performed phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation in the right 

eye and subsequently in the left eye on April 10, 2013.

4

In a report dated August 15, 2013, Dr. Cynthia Burlingame, an attending optometrist, 

opined that appellant’s right cataract was most likely caused by intra-articular injections.

On August 21, 2013 Dr. Cavanaugh performed an yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) laser 

capsulotomy for the left eye.5

On December 18, 2014 OWCP expanded the acceptance of appellant’s claim to include a 

right ocular cataract and a right shoulder condition.

On March 20, 2015 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a schedule 

award. In support of her claim, she submitted an August 8, 2015 report from Dr. Neal Eylar, an 

attending optometrist, who found seven percent permanent impairment of the right eye due to a

posterior subcapsular polar cataract according to the sixth edition of the American Medical 

Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.

6

By decision dated December 28, 2016, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 

seven percent permanent impairment of the right eye. The period of the award ran for 11.2 weeks 

from October 28, 2013 through January 14, 2014.

On January 6, 2017 appellant, through counsel, requested a hearing before a representative 

of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, held on June 22, 2017.

By decision dated August 1, 2017, the OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

December 28, 2016 decision.

3 OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx960. Appellant has other claims alleging injuries to 

her neck and bilateral upper extremities under OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx087, xxxxxx567, xxxxxx473, xxxxxx188, and 

xxxxxx396. OWCP administratively combined appellant’s claims effective March 23, 2012, with OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx960 designated as the master file. 

4 On October 5, 2018 OWCP retroactively authorized the March 27, 2013 surgery and lens implant. 

5 On July 3, 2018 OWCP retroactively authorized the August 21, 2013 laser surgery. 

6 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2009).
3

Appellant, through counsel, appealed to the Board. 

By decision dated March 20, 2018,7the Board affirmed the August 1, 2017 decision.

Thereafter, OWCP received a May 17, 2018 report by Dr. Burlingame recounting 

appellant’s bilateral cataract surgeries. On examination of the right eye, Dr. Burlingame observed 

unaided distant visual acuity (DVA) of 20/30 and unaided near visual acuity (NVA) of 20/200. 

On the left, he observed 20/25 unaided DVA and 20/200 unaided NVA, with bilateral acuities of 

20/20 unaided DVA and 20/100 unaided NVA. Dr. Burlingame diagnosed ocular allergy, bilateral 

dry eye syndrome, hyperopia, and presbyopia.

On January 18, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration.

By decision dated March 2, 2022, OWCP denied modification. 

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

decision and must be remanded to OWCP for further development. In the case of William A. 

Couch,

8

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. As detailed above, appellant submitted evidence fromDr. Burlingame. In her report, dated 

May 17, 2018, Dr. Burlingame addressed appellant’s history of bilateral cataract removal and 

provided visual acuity measurements with and without corrective lenses. However, the record 

does not indicate that OWCP reviewed this additional evidence in its March 2, 2022 decision. It, 

thus, failed to follow its procedures by not considering and addressing the relevant evidence of 

record.9

As the Board’s decisions are final as to the subject matter appealed, it is crucial that OWCP 

address all evidence received prior to the issuance of its decision.

10

 For this reason, the case will 

be remanded to OWCP to address the above-noted evidence submitted at the time of the March 2, 

2022 decision. Following this and other such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it 

shall issue a de novo decision regarding appellant’s schedule award claim. Accordingly,

7

Supra note 2.

8

41 ECAB 548 (1990); see alsoOrder Remanding Case, T.F., Docket No. 22-0015 (issued May 16, 2022); Order 

Remanding Case, F.A., Docket No. 20-1324 (issued March 1, 2021); T.G., Docket No. 19-1930 (issued 

January 8, 2021).

9 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).

10 See T.F., id.; Order Remanding Case, G.A., Docket No. 19-1080 (issued January2, 2020); Order Remanding 

Case, T.J., Docket No. 14-1854 (issued February 3, 2015); Order Remanding Case, J.J., Docket No. 12-1062 (issued 

December 12, 2012); Willard McKennon, 51 ECAB 145 (1999); Linda Johnson, 45 ECAB 439 (1994). See also 

Order Remanding Case, C.S., Docket No. 18-1760 (issued November 25, 2019); Yvette N. Davis, 55 ECAB 

475 (2004); William A. Couch, id.
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 2, 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: June 21, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board