United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.N., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MEMPHIS 

NETWORK DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Memphis, TN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0896

Issued: November 22, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Emma Cull, for the appellant

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 May 27, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a February 4, 2022 

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

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0896.

On July 10, 2019 appellant, then a 55-year-old mail handler equipment operator, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained a low back injury due to factors 

of his federal employment over the prior 25 years, including operating a forklift and manually 

handling heavy packages. He noted that he first became aware of his claimed condition on 

March 24, 2019 and first realized its relation to his federal employment on March 26, 2019. 

Appellant did not stop work.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted medical evidence, including a series of reports 

dated March 26 through September 10, 2019 from Dr. Stacey Hunt-Okolo, a Board-certified 

obstetrician and gynecologist. He also submitted a January 2, 2019 magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) scan of the lumbar spine, as well as physical therapy reports dated between September 18

and 25, 2019. In an August 19, 2019 statement, appellant provided additional details regarding 

his job duties.
2

By decision dated October 9, 2019, OWCP accepted the employment factors implicated by 

appellant, including operating a forklift and handling heavy packages. However, it denied his 

occupational disease claim, finding that he did not submit sufficient medical evidence to establish 

a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the accepted employment factors. OWCP

concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined under 

FECA.

On October 7, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration of the October 9, 2019 decision.

In support of his reconsideration request, he submitted reports dated November 12, 2019 through 

October 20, 2020 from Dr. Hunt-Okolo. Appellant also submitted physical therapy reports dated 

between October 7, 2019 and December 22, 2020, as well as chiropractic reports dated between 

August 7, 2019 and April 14, 2020. 

By decision dated January 4, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its October 9, 2019 

decision.

On February 1, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration of the January 4, 2021 decision. 

In support of his reconsideration request, he submitted reports dated November 19 and 

December 15, 2020, and January 19 and March 2, 2021 from Dr. Hunt-Okolo, and reports dated 

June 1 and July 6, 2021 from Dr. Marcia Bradford-Love, a Board-certified internist. Both

Dr. Hunt-Okolo and Dr. Bradford-Love provided narrative reports opiningthat appellant sustained 

multiple diagnosed lumbar conditions due to his work duties. Appellant also submitted reports 

dated November 8 and December 6, 2021, and January 20, 2022 from Dr. Charles J. Manfresca, 

an osteopath and Board-certified family practice specialist, as well as an August 24, 2021 MRI 

scan of the lumbar spine and physical therapy reports dated between January 29 and 

August 11, 2021. Dr. Manfresca’s narrative reports provide his opinion that appellant sustained 

multiple diagnosed lumbar conditions due to his work duties.

By decision dated February 4, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration

as it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. It noted, “You did not 

present clear evidence of error. Therefore, your request for reconsideration is denied because it 

was not received within the one-year limit.”

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

In its February 4, 2022 decision, OWCP failed to provide adequate facts and findings to 

support its denial of appellant’s request for reconsideration for being untimely filed and failing to 

demonstrate clear evidence of error. It did not discuss any of the health care provider reports 

submitted by appellant on reconsideration, or explain why they did not demonstrate clear evidence 

of error by OWCP in its January 4, 2021 decision.1

1 To demonstrate clear evidence of error, a claimant must submit evidence relevant to the issue which was decided 

by OWCP and the evidence must manifest on its face that OWCP committed an error. Evidence that does not raise a 

substantial question concerning the correctness of OWCP’s decision is insufficient to demonstrate clear evidence of 

error. See J.D., Docket No. 19-1836 (issued April6, 2020); A.A., Docket No. 19-1219 (issued December 10, 2019); 

S.W., Docket No. 18-0126 (issued May 14, 2019).
3

In deciding matters pertaining to a given claimant’s entitlement to compensation benefits, 

OWCP is required by statute and regulation to make findings of fact. 2 The Federal (FECA) 

Procedure Manual further specifies that a final decision of OWCP “should be clear and detailed 

so that the reader understands the reason for the disallowance of the benefit and the evidence 

necessary to overcome the defect of the claim.”

3

 These requirements are supported by Board 

precedent.4

Given the inadequacy of OWCP’s presentation of the facts and findings in the present case, 

appellant would not be able to understand the reason for the disallowance of his claim and the 

evidence necessary to overcome the defect of his claim. Therefore, the case shall be remanded to 

OWCP for further evaluation and an appropriate decision, which contains adequate facts and 

findings regarding appellant’s request for reconsideration.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 4, 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: November 22, 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

2

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a) provides that OWCP “shall determine and make a finding of facts and make an award for or 

against payment of compensation.” 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 provides in pertinent part that the final decision of OWCP 

“shall contain findings of fact and a statement of reasons.”

3

See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5c(3)(e) 

(February2013).

4

See P.G., Docket No. 17-1461 (issued February 7, 2019); James D. Boller, Jr., 12 ECAB 45, 46 (1960).