United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Tampa, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1258

Issued: March 14, 2023

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

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On August 29, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 16, 2022merit decision 

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

assigned the appeal Docket No. 22-1258.

On June 27, 2022 appellant, then a 56-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on April 1, 2022 she injured her lower back while team lifting heavy 

boxes and dog food while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form, 

appellant’s supervisor acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty.

In an April 7, 2022 work restriction note, Brittany Bandy, a physician assistant, noted that 

appellant was seen on that date. She released appellant for work with a restriction on lifting or 

carrying items over 20 pounds.

1 The Board notes that, following the August 16, 2022decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP.

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

In a development letter dated July 13, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

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

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

evidence.

Appellant subsequently submitted a July 21, 2022 duty status report (Form CA-17) from 

Patricia Hill, an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN), indicating clinical findings of 

decreased range of motion (ROM), back pain, and muscle spasm. Ms. Hill diagnosed lumbago 

and muscle spasm and advised that appellant could return to work the following day with 

restrictions, including no lifting over 10 pounds. In a state workers’ compensation form of even 

date, she indicated that appellant had sustained a work-related injury on April 1, 2022. Ms. Hill 

diagnosed muscle spasm and lumbago and released appellant for work with restrictions, including 

no lifting over ten pounds.

On July 21, 2022 appellant underwent thoracic and lumbar spine x-rays, which revealed 

no abnormalities. 

In an August 5, 2022report, Ms. Taylor, a nurse practitioner, related that appellantreported

pain radiating down her left side, numbness in her lower back, a burning sensation behind her 

shoulder blade, constant muscle spasms, and pressure in her lower back. Examination of the back 

demonstrated increased pain with sitting, standing, and bending and pain radiating down the left 

leg. Ms. Taylor diagnosed acute low back pain without sciatica and muscle spasm. She advised 

that appellant should return to light-duty work with restrictions. In a state workers’ compensation 

form of even date,2 Ms. Taylor noted that appellant sustained a work-related injury on April 1, 

2022 and checked boxes indicating that she did not have any contributory preexisting conditions 

or relevant comorbidities. She diagnosed low back pain and muscle spasm and advised that 

appellant should not lift, push, or pull more than ten pounds, bend, or climb.

By decision dated August 16, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the April 1, 2022 employment 

incident occurred as alleged. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to 

establish an injury as defined by FECA. In its decision, OWCP only referenced the July 21, 2022 

x-ray report and July 21 and August 11, 2022 Florida Workers’ Compensation forms.

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,

3

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. As detailed above, OWCP received an April 7, 2022 work restriction 

note signed by Ms. Bandy noting that appellant sought medical treatment on that date, a July 21, 

2022 Form CA-17 signed by Ms. Hill diagnosing lumbago and muscle spasm, and an August 5, 

2 While the form is dated August 5, 2022, the case record indicates the author date as August 11, 2022.

3

41 ECAB 548 (1990); see also K.B., Docket No. 20-1320 (issued February 8, 2021); R.D., Docket No. 17-1818 

(issued April 3, 2018).
3

2022 report signed by Ms. Taylor. indicating that appellant sustained a work-related injury on 

April 1, 2022 and diagnosing low back pain and sciatica. OWCP, however, did not review this 

evidence in its August 16, 2022 merit decision. It, thus, failed to follow its procedures by not 

considering all of the relevant evidence of record.4

As Board decisions are final with regard to the subject matter appealed, it is crucial that 

OWCP review and consider all relevant evidence received prior to the issuance of its final 

decision.5 On remand, OWCP shall review and consider all evidence properly submitted by 

appellant prior to the issuance of the August 16, 2022 OWCP decision. Following this and other 

such further development as deemed necessary, itshall issue a de novo decision.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 16, 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: March 14, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4 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).

5 E.D., Docket No. 20-0620 (issued November 18, 2020); see also L.B., Docket No. 21-0140 (issued August 25, 

2021); C.S., Docket No. 18-1760 (issued November 25, 2019); Yvette N. Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004); WilliamA. 

Couch,supranote 4.