United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.F., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Fort Worth, TX, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0569

Issued: January 2, 2024

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On March 15, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 10, 2023 nonmerit

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

Boards docketed the appeal as Docket No. 23-0569.

On December 28, 2020 appellant, then a 62-year-old custodian, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she experienced stiffness, soreness, and tenderness in her 

left elbow due to factors of her federal employment. She related that on September 8, 2020 she 

was using a dustpan to pick up trash and experiencedleft elbow tightness, stiffness, and tenderness, 

and on November 12, 2020 she bumped her left elbow on a restroom stall door while cleaning it 

which agitated her injury and caused weakness and inflammation. Appellant did not stop work. 

In a January 13, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish her claim 

and provided a factual questionnaire for her completion. In a second development letter of even 

date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide additional information, including 

comments from a knowledgeable supervisor. It afforded both parties 30 days to submit the 

requested evidence. 
2

By decision dated March 23, 2021, OWCP found that the evidence was sufficient to 

establish that the employment factors occurred as described. However, it denied appellant’s 

occupational disease claim, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal 

relationship between her diagnosed medical condition and the accepted factors of her federal 

employment. 

On December 30, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of the March 23, 2021 decision 

and submitted additional evidence. 

By decision dated February 28, 2022, OWCP denied modification of its March 23, 2021 

decision. It noted that appellant’s medical evidence did not contain discussion regarding whether 

her prior injuries in OWCP File No. xxxxxx687, accepted for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome 

(CTS) and bilateral tenosynovitis of the hand and wrist, and OWCP File No. xxxxxx572, accepted 

for cervical disc disorder at C4-5 with radiculopathy and cervical spondylosis, could have caused 

or contributed to her current diagnosed conditions.

Appellant continued to submit evidence, including a September 7, 2022 report from

Dr. Matthew Fournier, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who noted that she presented for 

treatment of left elbow pain. Dr. Fournier diagnosed left lateral epicondylitis and related that her

repetitive lifting of packages at work was directly causative of her condition. 

In an October 12, 2022 visit note, Dr. Stephanie Y. Chiu, a Board-certified family 

practitioner, assessed right middle toe pain, bilateral CTS, chronic neck pain, bilateral knee pain, 

and left elbow joint pain. 

In a November 15, 2022 visit note, Dr. Chiu noted that appellant’s pain had resolved and 

diagnosed lateral epicondylitis of the left humerus. 

On March 6, 2023 appellant requested reconsideration of the February 28, 2022 decision.

She requested that OWCP examine the statement on causal relationship contained in

Dr. Fournier’s September 7, 2022 report.

By decision dated March 10, 2023, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

of the merits of her claim, finding that it was untimely filed, and failed to demonstrate clear 

evidence of error. It noted, “The basis for this decision is [appellant] failed to submit a statement 

containing any clear evidence of error. [She] submitted only medical evidence which does not 

prove clear evidence of error.”

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

decision. 

OWCP did not make findings regarding the evidence appellant submitted in support of the 

reconsideration request.1 It summarily denied her request for reconsideration without complying 

1

See Order Remanding Case, S.G., Docket No. 22-1136 (issued January 17, 2023); Order Remanding Case, J.K., 

Docket No. 20-0556 (issued April 13, 2020); Order Remanding Case, T.B., Docket No. 20-0426 (issued 

July 27, 2020).
3

with the review requirement of FECA and its implementing regulations.2 As noted, section 8124(a) 

of FECA provides that OWCP shall determine and make a finding of fact and make an award for 

or against payment of compensation.3 Its regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 provide that the 

decision of the director of OWCP shall contain findings and facts 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

In its March 10, 2023 decision, OWCP did not discharge its responsibility to set forth 

findings of fact, and a clear statement of reasons explaining the disposition so that appellant could 

understand the basis for the decision, i.e., why the evidence submitted in connection with the 

request for reconsideration did not demonstrate clear evidence of error in the February 28, 2022

decision, and was insufficient to warrant further merit review. 6 It did not address the medical 

evidence submitted by appellant in support of her request for reconsideration. The case must 

therefore be remanded to OWCP for an appropriate decision on appellant’s request for 

reconsideration that describes the evidence submitted on reconsideration and provides detailed 

reasons for accepting or rejecting the request for reconsideration pursuant to the relevant 

standards.7

The Board will therefore set aside OWCP’s March 10, 2023 decision, and remand the case 

for findings of fact and a statement of reasons, pursuant to the standards set forth in 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.126, to be followed by an appropriate decision on appellant’s request for reconsideration.

2

See I.L., Docket No. 23-0329 (issued August 1, 2023); L.J., Docket No. 23-0282 (issued May 26, 2023); M.G., 

Docket No. 21-0893 (issued December 27, 2021); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b).

3

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

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

decisions should contain findings of fact sufficient to identify the benefit being denied and the reason for the 

disallowance).

6 Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §8128(a), OWCP has the discretion to reopen a case for further merit review. A request for 

reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of OWCP’s decision for which review is 

sought. 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a). When a claimant’s request for reconsideration is untimely filed, it must nevertheless 

undertake a limited review to determine whether it demonstrates clear evidence of error. If a request for 

reconsideration demonstrates clear evidence of error, OWCP will reopen the case for merit review. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.607(b); L.C., Docket No. 18-1407 (issued February 14, 2019).

7

See Order Remanding Case, B.J., Docket No. 23-1002 (issued November 17, 2023).
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 10, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation is set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this decision of the Board.

Issued: January 2, 2024

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board