U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employees' Compensation Appeals Board In the Matter of LEONARD D. BERGANTINO and VETERANS ADMINISTRATION OUTPATIENT CLINIC, San Diego, Calif. Procedure on appeal to or review by Board, issue not raised before Where the only appealable decision of the Office related solely to a Docket No. 74-146; Submitted on the Record; Before FLOYD G. ANSLEY, E. GERALD LAMBOLEY, FRED E. STRINE Appellant, a psychologist, filed a claim alleging that on October 4, 1972 he sustained a work injury and requesting compensation commencing October 11, 1972. He stated in his claim and in subsequent documents that during the period from March 5 through October 10, 1972, he worked in a building where he was regularly exposed to noise from low flying aircraft which affected his hearing and his ability to work. The case record contains reports from several physicians regarding their examinations of appellant. In a decision issued February 25, 1974,1 which became final on March 27, 1974, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, formerly the Office of Federal Employees' Compensation, found he did not have a hearing loss related to his employment. On appeal, appellant states that the issue is not whether he has a hearing loss and points out that he is not seeking compensation for a hearing loss. He states that the correct issue is whether he is entitled to back pay from October 11, 1972 "until the VA decides to The decision is dated February 25, 1973, but since it was mailed to appellant on February 25, 1974, obviously the correct date of the decision is February 25, 1974. 1 reinstate me in a safe working environment." In a memorandum dated June 6, 1974 submitted by the Office in support of its decision, it states that it has not made a final decision as to whether appellant is entitled to compensation for temporary total disability, that therefore this issue is not before the Board, and that upon return of the case record it will issue a de novo decision on this matter. The Board notes that the only appealable decision of the Office is that of February 25, 1974 which became final on March 27, 1974, and that the decision relates solely to a finding that appellant does not have an employment-related loss of hearing. Since appellant states that this is not the issue or the basis of his appeal, the decision of February 25, 1974 is not before the Board for review. The issue urged by appellant regarding his possible entitlement to compensation for the period commencing October 11, 1972, has not been decided by the Office and therefore is not reviewable by the Board.2 Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the case record is returned to the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs for a de novo decision on the question of whether appellant is entitled to compensation for disability, as proposed in the Office's memorandum of June 6, 1974. 2 20 CFR 501.2(c). In the Matter of EDWARD JOSEPH CONNOLLY, JR. and Procedure on appeal to or review by Board, issue not raised before Where the only issue urged by appellant was that regarding his Docket No. 74-160; Submitted on the Record; Before FLOYD G. ANSLEY, E. GERALD LAMBOLEY, FRED E. STRINE The issue is whether the Board has jurisdiction to hear the appeal in this case. On December 4, 1969, appellant, a special investigator, sustained a work injury. He continued to work for some time and on June 30, 1972, he retired under the provisions of the Civil Service Retirement Act and also filed for benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (the Act).1 Before the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, formerly the Office of Federal Employees' Compensation, made a determination of appellant's entitlement to benefits under the Act, if any, he wrote to the Office and requested a lump-sum settlement of his case. On February 15, 1974, the Office determined that appellant was entitled to compensation for partial loss of wage-earning capacity; however, he elected to receive Civil Service retirement benefits rather than benefits under the Act. In an application for review received from appellant by the Board on July 9, 1974, he gave as grounds for his appeal the following: "In my letter of July 23, 1973, Exhibit 'A' attached, I request that my permanent partial disability claim be settled as a lump-sum settlement pursuant to Section 14 of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act as I have sold my home and plan to move to Mexico and become a nonresident of the United States as soon as this claim is settled, but instead my benefits were computed as a loss of wage earning capacity as per the letter of February 15, 1974, Exhibit 'B' attached. I request that my claim for permanent partial disability be computed pursuant to Section 14 of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act as a lump-sum settlement."2 The Board notes that the only appealable decision of the Office is that of February 15, 1974, which related solely to a finding that appellant was entitled to compensation for a loss of wage-earning capacity. The decision of February 15, 1974 is not before the Board for review. The only issue urged by appellant is that regarding his possible entitlement to a lump-sum payment of benefits under the Act, but since this has not been decided by the Office this issue is not reviewable by the Board. 3 Therefore, the appeal is hereby dismissed and the case record is returned to the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs. 15 U.S.C. 8101 et seq. 2 Now 5 U.S.C. 8135. 20 CFR 501.2(c). Oper. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR P.R. Employees' Compensation Appeals Board In the Matter of JOSEPH LINDBERG HARDY and DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL PROPELLANT PLANT, Indian Head, Md. Leg injuries Evidence established that appellant's September 8, 1960 leg injury did not cause any disability after November 14, 1960 and that his absence from work commencing April 28, 1961 was not due to the injury, where 1961 examinations by PHS and employing establishment doctors revealed that he did not have any residuals of the injury and was able to continue working. Medical opinions, weight of A doctor's report suggesting leg disability was speculative and not based on objective findings; it was therefore insufficient to overcome other medical evidence that appellant no longer had any employmentrelated disability. Docket No. 74-147; Submitted on the Record; Before FLOYD G. ANSLEY, E. GERALD LAMBOLEY, FRED E. STRINE The issue is whether appellant had any employment-related disability after April 28, 1961. On September 8, 1960, appellant, a powder operator, was injured when a flash fire occurred at work. He received second and third degree burns of the right leg and both wrists and first degree burns of the face. Dr. Albert E. Sacknoff, a United States Public Health Service surgeon, reported that when appellant was discharged from the hospital on September 29, 1960, the burns on his face and wrists were completely healed and the burns on the right leg were fairly healed except for one small area. He stated that no permanent disability was anticipated. On November 4, 1960, Dr. R. J. Schurdak of the Public Health Service reported that the burns were almost completely healed and that appellant would be able to return to work after November 9, 1960. On November 14, 1960, appellant returned to work, and he received compensation for the period of his absence not covered by leave. On March 3, 1961, appellant was examined by Dr. O. Anderson Engh, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon and Public Health Service consultant. He complained of pain in the right calf and right knee. The doctor stated that, while there were numerous scars resulting from the burns and contractures, the examination |