United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Keyser, WV, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0179

Issued: June 28, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On November 15, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 10, 2021 merit 

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

Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 22-0179.

1

On June 14, 2021 appellant, then a 25-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on June 1, 2021 he sustained a back injury when he was lifting a heavy 

package while in the performance of duty. He explained that the weight of the package shifted 

backwards, forcing him to save himself from falling and injuring his back in the process.

In an August 10, 2021 duty status form, Alicia Brown, a physician assistant recommended 

modified duty with restrictions on bending, stooping, pulling, pushing, lifting, and carrying. 

In a report dated August 17, 2021, Dr. Dhimitri Gross, a Board-certified family 

practitioner, indicated that appellant was seen for follow up of his June 1, 2021 lower back injury. 

1 The Board notes that, following the November 10, 2021 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to the 

Board. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedureprovides: “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

She related that appellant’s symptoms had resolved. Dr. Gross diagnosed low back pain and sprain 

of ligaments of lumbar spine, indicating that both conditions had resolved. She advised that 

appellant could return to full-duty work. In a duty status form of even date, Dr. Gross released 

appellant to return to work without restrictions beginning August 18, 2021. 

In an August 22, 2021 report, Dr. Gross related that appellant attempted to resume fullduty work, but developed debilitating back pain and spasm three hours into his shift, and was 

unable to complete the shift. She diagnosed sprain of ligaments in lumbar spine, low back pain, 

and muscle spasm, and recommended that he follow up with an orthopedist for further evaluation. 

Dr. Gross advised no heavy lifting. In a duty status form of even date, she recommended modified 

duty beginning August 23, 2021 with restrictions including working only three to four hours per 

day and lifting and carrying no more than 50 pounds. 

On August 26, 2021 appellant accepted a part-time, limited-duty job offer for a rural carrier 

associate (RCA) position, working four hours per day. The duties of the assignment required 

carrying mail and packages up to 50 pounds for up to four hours per day. The physical 

requirements of the position involved lifting up to 50 pounds for 30 minutes, delivering mail for 

three and a half hours, and driving a vehicle for three and a half hours.

On September 7, 2021 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for sprain of the lumbar spine.

In a September 8, 2021 duty status form, Dr. Gross diagnosed sprain of ligaments of 

lumbar spine, low back pain, muscle spasm, and lumbosacral radiculopathy and recommended 

modified duty beginning on September 9, 2021 with restrictionsincludingonly four hours of work

per day and lifting and carrying no more than 20 pounds.

On September 9, 2021 appellant accepted a part-time, limited-duty job offer for an RCA 

position identical to the August 26, 2021 offer, with the exception that he would only be required 

to lift up to 20 pounds.

On September 9, 2021 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for 

intermittent disability from work for the period August 14 through 27, 2021.

By decision dated November 10, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation, finding that he had not established disability from work for the period August 19, 

2021 and continuing causally related to the accepted June 1, 2021 employment injury.

The Board has duly considered this 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 all evidence properly submitted by a claimant and received by OWCP 

before the final decision is issued.

2

41 ECAB 548 (1990); see also S.H., Docket No. 19-1582 (issued May 26, 2020); R.D., Docket No. 17-1818 

(issued April 3, 2018).
3

In its November 10, 2021 decision, OWCP failed to address the August 22, 2021 report 

and duty status form from Dr. Gross. As such, it failed to follow its procedures by properly 

discussing all of the evidence of record.3 It is crucial that OWCP 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.4

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

the evidence submitted by appellant in support of his claim for compensation.5 On remand, OWCP 

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

it shall issue a de novo decision.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 10, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside, and the case is remanded to OWCP for further 

proceedings consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: June 28, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3

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

development that lacks probative value 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 

2.1401.5(b)(2) (November 2012).

4

See C.S., Docket No. 18-1760 (issued November 25, 2019); Yvette N. Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004); see also 

WilliamA. Couch,supranote 2.

5

See S.H.,supra note 2;V.C., Docket No. 16-0694 (issued August19, 2016).