Alan participates in literally hundreds of appeals each year. ECAB was created in 1946 and delegated exclusive jurisdiction by Congress to consider appeals of federal employees from final decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) in claims arising under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 8101 et seq.).
Dear Federal Workers’ Compensation Clients,
I participate in literally hundreds of appeals each year. While each decision is a learning experience, most are not unusual. Most cases rest on the facts or medical causal relationship. However, several are considerable importance and interest. I am putting on my web site some of the decisions that I feel are interesting.
Decisions will be posted that are both “winners” and “losers”. Read the decisions and tell me how you would have ruled if you were the judge. Let me know your strategy if you were the lawyer. Let me know if you believe that the truth of the client’s statements and the doctor’s opinion. What do you think is the most essential fact of the case?
Alan J Shapiro, Attorney at Law
Arbitration decision involving the National Reassessment Program
I believe that the arbitrator is right on point. His decision should be the model for all United States Post Office (USPS) decisions involving the National Reassessment Program.
In the Matter of the Arbitration between the United States Postal Service and National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO
Case No. BO6N-4B-C 09401562
Union No. 0906106501
I believe that this ECAB case R. L. and the U.S. Postal Services, 61 ECAB 09-1948 decided June 29 2010 finally correctly clarifies the law concerning the law concerning the “disability” and “impairment”. The Board, ECAB, very clearly instructed OWCP to recognize that the termination of disability benefits is not a termination of impairment benefits. A Schedule Award is an impairment decision and not a disability decision. It does not consider loss of earning capacity. It considers loss of function of the body.
- L. and the U.S. Postal Services, 61 ECAB 09-1948 decided June 29 2010
Wage Earning Capacity Decision
The ECAB board in the case of A.J. and the United States Postal Service, 61 ECAB 10-619 decided June 29 2010, tried to clarify and set forth reasonable rules concerning Loss of Wage Earning Capacity (LWEC) decisions. The decision is an excellent analysis of the evidence. The decision should be followed by OWCP as the definitive statement of Law. We shall see what OWCP does.
A.J. and the United States Postal Service, 61 ECAB 10-619 decided June 29 2010
Suitable Job Offer
The subject of Suitable Job Offer could and should be the basis for an extensive Law Review article. In my opinion, there never should be a suitable job offer decision unless the claimant is represented by experience legal counsel. The refusal to accept a “Suitable Job Offer” ends the claimant’s case. I tell my clients that this is the death of their claim – this is a verdict of death with no hope of resurrection. I submit that OWCP and the ECAB Board should require that a claimant should receive legal advice before refusing a Suitable Job Offer. The ECAB Board, very much to its credit, especially Chief Judge Alex Koromilas, understands the severity of the penalty. The Board requires OWCP to meet a very high standard of proof. The ECAB Board requires that OWCP follows the law precisely. In the case of L.C. vs. U.S. Postal Service Post Office Docket No 08-2334 Issued July 16 2009 ruled since the employee’s date of injury position was permanent, the office could not find that a temporary job was suitable.
L.C. vs. U.S. Postal Service Post Office Docket No 08-2334 Issued July 16 2009