United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SOUTH SUBURBAN 

ILLINOIS PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION 

CENTER, Bedford Park, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0127

Issued: February 16, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On November 1, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an August 11, 

2021 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of 

the Appellate Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 22-0127.

On July 15, 2017 appellant, then a 42-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she injured her right shoulder and neck when pulling an 

all-purpose container while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on July 17, 2017. 

OWCP accepted the claim for strain of the muscle, fascia, and tendon of the right upper arm. It 

authorized wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls as of September 30, 2017 and on the 

periodic rolls as of February 23, 2019. On October 11, 2017 OWCP expanded the acceptance of 

appellant’s claim to include right rotator cuff sprain.

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

On January 22, 2019 appellant underwent an OWCP-authorized right shoulder 

subacromial decompression and debridement and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

On December 9, 2019 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) requesting a 

schedule award.

In a December 11, 2019 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the type of 

evidence required to establish her schedule award claim. It afforded her 30 days to provide the 

requested evidence.

By decision dated January 30, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim,

finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish permanent impairment of 

a scheduled member or function of the body.

On November 5, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and provided 

additional medical evidence, including an October 19, 2020 report wherein Dr. Neil Allen, a 

Board-certified internist and neurologist, found five percent permanent impairment of the right 

upper extremity pursuant to the sixth edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the 

Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides)

2

causally related to her July 15, 2017 

accepted employment injury.

OWCP subsequently received additional evidence, wherein, Dr. Allen, addressed

permanent impairment due to appellant’s May 1, 2014 employment injuries in OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx590.3

By decision dated August 11, 2021, OWCP denied modification.

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that this case is not in posture for 

decision.

In the case of William A. Couch,

4

the Board held that when adjudicating a claim OWCP is 

obligated to consider and address all evidence properly submitted by a claimant and received by 

OWCP before the final decision is issued. As detailed above, on reconsideration, appellant 

submitted an October 19, 2020 report, wherein Dr. Allen found five percent permanent impairment 

of the right upper extremity in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides. OWCP, however, did not 

consider and address this evidence in its August 11, 2021 decision. It, thus, failed to follow its 

2 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2009).

3 By decision dated July 21, 2021, under OWCP File No. xxxxxx590, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award 

for one percent permanent impairment of each upper extremity.

4 41 ECAB 548 (1990); see also E.W., Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 20-1569 (issued January 10, 2022); 

K.B., Docket No. 20-1320 (issued February 8, 2021); R.D., Docket No. 17-1818 (issued April 3, 2018).
3

procedures by not considering and addressing all of the relevant evidence of record.5 As Board 

decisions are final with regard to the subject matter appealed, it is crucial that OWCP consider and 

address all relevant evidence received prior to the issuance of its final decision.6 

The Board further finds that OWCP’s procedures provide that cases should be 

administratively combined when correct adjudication of the issues depends on frequent crossreferencing between files.7

 For example, if a new injury claim is reported for an employee who 

previously filed an injury claim for a similar condition of the same part of the body, doubling is 

required.8 Herein, appellant has a prior claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx590 for the right upper 

extremity, which is the same region of the body at issue in the claim presently before the Board.

Therefore, for full and fair adjudication, the case must be remanded to OWCP to administratively 

combine the current case record, OWCP File No. xxxxxx435, with OWCP File No. xxxxxx590. 

The case will be remanded to OWCP to administratively combine the current file with 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx590 and to properly consider and address all of the evidence of record. On 

remand, following other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a 

de novo decision.

5 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 2.1401.5b(2) (November 2012).

6 See Order Remanding Case, L.B., Docket No. 21-0140 (issued August 25. 2021); Order Remanding Case, E.D.,

Docket No. 20-0620 (issued November 18, 2020); William A. Couch, supra note 4.

7 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, File Maintenance and Management, Chapter 2.400.8c 

(February 2000).

8

Id.; Order Remanding Case, H.B., Docket No 20-1298 (issued November 22, 2021); Order Remanding Case, 

S.G., Docket No. 21-0396 (issued September 27, 2021); Order Remanding Case, R.L., Docket No. 20-0901 (issued 

July 27, 2021).
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 11, 2021 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: February 16, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board