United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.C., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Chicago, IL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1659 

Issued: June 8, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 28, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 10, 2014 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1

 Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act2

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction over the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant timely filed an occupational disease claim for 

compensation under 5 U.S.C. § 8122(a). 

 1

 Appellant also timely requested oral argument pursuant to section 501.5(b) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). The Board denied the request in a May 5, 2015 order on the grounds that no statement of 

reasons supporting the need for oral argument was received and her argument on appeal could be adequately 

addressed in a decision based on a review of the case record. Order Denying Request for Oral Argument, Docket 

No. 14-1659 (issued May 5, 2015). 

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 20, 2013 appellant, then a 55-year-old, former letter sorter machine clerk and 

mail handler, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) under File No. xxxxxx021 

alleging that she first became aware of an aggravation of her preexisting connective tissue 

disorder and neck pain in March 2010. She further alleged that on March 18, 2013 she first 

realized that her conditions were caused or aggravated by her repetitive work duties. On the 

claim form, the employing establishment stated that appellant stopped work on January 12, 1989. 

It further stated that she first reported her injury to a supervisor on March 27, 2013. 

In a March 20, 2013 letter, appellant stated that the employing establishment did not 

advise her about the filing date for her claim. She was diagnosed with a heart condition in 2010 

that was acknowledged by the employing establishment’s medical unit. Appellant contended 

that a May 7, 1985 work-related traumatic injury aggravated her conditions and rendered her 

unable to return to work after November 7, 1986.3 In a March 31, 2013 letter, appellant 

referenced accompanying medical records from the employing establishment’s health unit dated 

August 22, 1984 to November 7, 1986. These records were mostly illegible chart notes that 

addressed the treatment of her neck, back, and bilateral leg conditions and her work capacity. 

By letter dated April 23, 2013, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence submitted was 

insufficient to establish her claim. It requested factual and medical evidence. OWCP also 

requested that the employing establishment respond to appellant’s allegations and submit 

medical evidence, if she had been treated at its medical facility. 

On May 7, 2013 appellant submitted a description of her former work duties. She stated 

that she last worked for the employing establishment in January 1989, and again contended that 

her employment-related activities contributed to her condition. Appellant stated that she first 

became aware of a connective tissue disorder on October 26, 2012, when the diagnosis was 

confirmed by genetic testing at Cedars Sinai Hospital, not on March 1, 2010 as indicated on her 

claim form. 

In a June 27, 2013 decision, OWCP found that appellant’s occupational disease claim 

was not timely filed under 5 U.S.C. § 8122 as she knew or reasonably should have known that 

her condition was caused or aggravated by her employment by at least 2006. It found that her 

claimed Marfan syndrome (connective tissue disorder) was addressed in its December 8, 2006 

notice which proposed to terminate her compensation benefits and was finalized in a decision 

dated January 18, 2007 under File No. xxxxxx086. OWCP also found that appellant’s claim for 

compensation was filed on March 20, 2013. It noted that she stopped work at the employing 

establishment on January 12, 1989. 

 3

 Prior to the instant claim, appellant filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) under File No. xxxxxx086 

alleging that she sustained left ankle, hip, and neck injuries on May 7, 1985 when she slipped and fell down a full 

flight of stairs. OWCP accepted the claim for neck, lumbar, left ankle, and left hip strain. It paid total disability 

compensation. On February 1, 2003 appellant filed a Form CA-1 under File No. xxxxxx103 alleging that she 

injured her left side, arms, and neck on July 24, 1985 while working on a letter sorter machine. OWCP accepted the 

claim for cervical and thoracic strain, and left trapezius myositis. The record does not indicate whether OWCP paid 

any compensation. These claims and the instant claim under File No. xxxxxx021 have been combined into a master 

claim assigned File No. xxxxxx086. 
3

On July 2, 2013 appellant requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative and submitted a June 12, 2013 medical report from Dr. Sylvia A. De La Llana, a 

physiatrist, who diagnosed connective tissue disease and Marfan syndrome, and opined that these 

conditions were accelerated and exacerbated by her May 7, 1985 work-related incident. 

During a November 22, 2013 telephonic hearing, appellant testified that she began work 

at the employing establishment in 1979 and after 1980 she sustained a neck injury as a result of 

an automobile accident. When she returned to work, she constantly told the employing 

establishment about the neck pain she experienced while at work. Appellant stated that no one 

instructed her that this was an occupational illness. In 2012 she went to Cedars Sinai Hospital 

and was tested for Marfan syndrome, but was diagnosed as having a connective tissue disorder. 

Appellant stated that this was a preexisting condition that was constantly aggravated by her work 

activities. 

In a February 10, 2014 decision, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the June 27, 

2013 denial of appellant’s claim as it was untimely filed. The hearing representative found that 

appellant was able to pursue her prior claims for the same medical conditions claimed in the 

instant occupational disease claim which were addressed in multiple OWCP decisions and, thus, 

she should have been capable of timely filing the instant claim. She noted that OWCP’s 2007 

termination of appellant’s compensation benefits under File No. xxxxxx086 was based on the 

opinion of an impartial medical specialist who found no evidence of any disabling residuals of 

the accepted work injuries or Marfan syndrome that prevented her from returning to full-duty 

work and was affirmed by the Board. The hearing representative found that she did not provide 

a reasonable basis for failing to pursue an occupational disease claim at an earlier date. She 

resent the decision on May 12, 2014.4

 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Under FECA, as amended in 1974, a claimant has three years to file a claim for 

compensation.5

 In occupational disease claims, the Board has held that the time for filing a 

claim begins to run when the employee first becomes aware or reasonably should have been 

aware of a possible relationship between the condition and her employment.6

 When an 

employee becomes aware or reasonably should have been aware that she has a condition which 

has been adversely affected by factors of her federal employment, such awareness is competent 

to start the limitation period even though the employee does not know the precise nature of the 

impairment or whether the ultimate result of such affect would be temporary or permanent.7

Section 8122(b) provides that, in latent disability cases, the time limitation does not begin 

to run until the claimant is aware or by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been 

 4

 On May 9, 2014 appellant informed OWCP that she had misplaced the February 2, 2014 decision and that she 

wished to appeal the decision to the Board. 

5 Duet Brinson, 52 ECAB 168 (2000); William F. Dorson, 47 ECAB 253, 257 (1995); see also 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.101(b). 

6 See William C. Oakley, 56 ECAB 519 (2005). 

7 Larry E. Young, 52 ECAB 264 (2001). 
4

aware of the causal relationship between her employment and the compensable disability.8

 

Where the employee continues in the same employment after such awareness, the time limitation 

begins to run on the date of last exposure to the implicated factors.9 The requirement to file a 

claim within three years is the claimant’s burden and not that of the employing establishment.10

Compensation for disability or death may still be allowed even if a claim is not filed 

within the three-year time frame if appellant can show that: (1) her immediate supervisor had 

actual knowledge of her alleged employment-related injury within 30 days such that the 

immediate supervisor was put reasonably on notice of an on-the-job injury; or (2) death or 

written notice of injury or death as specified in section 8119 was given within 30 days.11 Section 

8119 provides that a notice of injury or death shall be given within 30 days after the injury or 

death, be given to the immediate superior of the employee by personal delivery or by depositing 

it in the mail properly stamped and addressed, be in writing; state the name and address of the 

employee, state the year, month, day and hour when and the particular locality where the injury 

or death occurred; state the cause and nature of the injury or, in the case of death, the 

employment factors believed to be the cause and be signed by and contain the address of the 

individual giving the notice.12 The Board has held that actual knowledge and written notice of 

injury under section 8119 serve to satisfy the statutory period for filing an original claim for 

compensation.13 For actual knowledge of a supervisor to be regarded as timely filing, an 

employee must show not only that the immediate superior knew that he or she was injured, but 

also knew or reasonably should have known that it was an on-the-job injury.14

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleges that she sustained an aggravation of her preexisting connective tissue 

disorder and neck pain as a result of her employment. OWCP denied her occupational disease 

claim as untimely. The Board finds that appellant did not file her claim within the applicable 

time limitation provisions of FECA. 

In a Form CA-2, appellant stated that she initially became aware of her claimed 

conditions on March 18, 2013. She later claimed that she became aware of her conditions on 

October 26, 2012 when she was diagnosed as having a connective tissue disorder as confirmed 

by genetic testing at Cedars Sinai Hospital. The time limitations period for filing appellant’s 

occupational disease claim commenced on January 12, 1989 because she continued to work for 

the employing establishment until this date. Nonetheless, she filed her claim on March 20, 2013, 

over 24 years after she stopped work. Appellant’s purported unfamiliarity with FECA filing 

 8

 5 U.S.C. § 8122(b); see also Bennie L. McDonald, 49 ECAB 509, 514 (1998). 

9 Id.; see also William D. Goldsberry, 32 ECAB 536, 540 (1981). 

10 Debra Young Bruce, 52 ECAB 315 (2001). 

11 5 U.S.C. § 8122(a). 

12 Id. at § 8119. 

13 Laura L. Harrison, 52 ECAB 515 (2001). 

14 Delmont L. Thompson, 51 ECAB 155 (1999). 
5

requirements did not excuse her untimely filing.15 In addition, while she testified at the 

November 22, 2013 telephonic hearing that she constantly told the employing establishment 

about her neck pain upon her return to work following a 1980 automobile accident in which she 

sustained a neck injury, the case record does not contain evidence demonstrating that an 

immediate superior either had actual knowledge of or received written or verbal notification 

about a neck injury and its relationship to her work within 30 days of its occurrence.16 The 

employing establishment stated that appellant first reported her injury to a supervisor on 

March 27, 2013. The Board finds that appellant did not file a timely claim. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for 

reconsideration to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) 

and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant’s claim is barred by the applicable time limitation 

provisions of FECA. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 10, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 8, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 15 5 U.S.C. § 8122(d)(3) (exceptional circumstances); see Ralph L. Dill, 57 ECAB 248, 253-54 (2005) (ignorance 

of the law or one’s obligations under it does not constitute exceptional circumstances that would otherwise excuse 

an untimely filing). 

16 Duet Brinson, supra note 5.