United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Compton, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1045 

Issued: September 14, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

On April 16, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 13, 2020 merit decision 

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

assigned Docket No. 20-1045. 

On August 15, 1994 appellant, then a 39-year-old mail carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he injured his right hand and thumb as a result of factors 

of his federal employment including repetitive hand and arm movements required to case mail and 

place it into mailboxes. He noted that he first became aware of his condition and realized its 

relation to his federal employment on July 20, 1994. Appellant stopped work on August 6, 1994. 

He stopped work on August 9, 1994. OWCP assigned the claim File No. xxxxxx400 and accepted 

it for temporary aggravation of degenerative arthritis of the right thumb. 1 Appellant returned to 

light-duty work for four hours a day on November 14, 1995. By decision dated August 13, 1996, 

OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 25 percent permanent impairment of the right hand. 

By decision dated November 6, 1997, it granted appellant an additional 16 percent permanent 

1 Appellant has a prior claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx760, wherein OWCP accepted a September 3, 1996 

occupational diseaseclaim (Form CA-2) for arthralgia of the metacarpophalangeal joint of the left thumb, left shoulder 

strain and impingement syndrome. Appellant’s claims have been administratively combined, with OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx760 serving as the master file.
2

impairment, for a total of 41 percent permanent impairment of the right hand. Appellant stopped 

work again on September 19, 2007 due to his accepted left extremity conditions under OWCP File 

No. xxxxxx760. He underwent an OWCP-approved right shoulder arthroscopy on 

September 19, 2013. 

On September 15, 2016 OWCP expanded the acceptance of the claim to include right 

shoulder impingement syndrome with adhesive capsulitis and right thumb degenerative arthritis.

On July 20, 2016 appellant filed a claim for an increased schedule award (Form CA-7) 

regarding his accepted right thumb and right shoulder conditions.

By decision dated October 18, 2016, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for an 

additional eight percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity, due to permanent 

impairment of his right shoulder, for a total of 46 percent permanent impairment of the right upper 

extremity. The effective date of the pay rate was noted as August 9, 1994. 

On October 5, 2018 appellant filed a claim for an increased schedule award (Form CA-7).

By decision dated March 18, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an increased schedule 

award of his right upper extremity. It noted that his previous schedule award compensation for 

permanent impairment of his right upper extremity totaled 46 percent. OWCP also found that the 

medical evidence of record did not support an increase in the impairment for which he was already 

compensated.

Appellant appealed to the Board. By decision dated January 3, 2020, the Board found that 

appellant had established an additional 17 percent permanent impairment of the right shoulder.2

By decision dated February 13, 2020, OWCP awarded appellant 17 percent permanent 

impairment of the right shoulder. The schedule award indicated that this constituted a total of 25 

percent right upper extremity permanent impairment. The period of the award, equal to 53.04 

weeks of compensation, ran from September 13, 2018 to September 19, 2019.

The Board, having duly considered this matter, finds that this case is not in posture for 

decision. 

OWCP found that the additional 17 percent ordered by the Board totaled “25 percent right 

upper extremity permanent impairment.” It did not explain how it calculated a total of only 25 

percent when the case record indicates that appellant was previously issued schedule award

compensation for a total of “46 percent Right Upper Extremity.” Rather, it summarily found a 

total of only 25 percent right upper extremity permanent impairment without complying with the 

review requirements of FECA and its implementing regulations. Section 8124(a) of FECA 

provides that OWCP shall determine and make findings of fact and an award for or against 

payment of compensation.3 Its regulations provide that the decision of the Director of OWCP shall 

2 Docket No. 19-1041 (issued January 3, 2020).

3

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).
3

contain findings of fact and a statement of reasons.4 As well, OWCP’s procedures provide that 

the reasoning behind OWCP’s evaluation should be clear enough for the reader to understand the 

precise defect of the claim and the kind of evidence which would overcome it.5

The Board will therefore set aside OWCP’s February 13, 2020 decision and remand the 

case for a de novo decision.

6

 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 13, 2020 decision of the Office of 

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

consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: September 14, 2022

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

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

5 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5 (February 2013).

6

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a). 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).