United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

F.W., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Crandall, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-551 

Issued: April 27, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 13, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 2, 2014 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act1

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

jurisdiction to review the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant established neck and bilateral shoulder, wrist, and knee 

injuries causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

On appeal, appellant contends that her claimed injuries were caused by her employment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 31, 2014 appellant, then a 58-year-old retired part-time flexible sales service 

associate clerk filed an occupational disease claim alleging that on February 27, 2013 she first 

became aware of pain in her neck and both shoulders, wrists, and knees.2 She further alleged 

that on July 31, 2014 she first realized that the conditions were caused or aggravated by her 

repetitive work duties. 

By letter dated October 17, 2014, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence submitted 

was insufficient to establish her claim. It requested additional factual and medical information. 

OWCP also requested that the employing establishment respond to appellant’s allegation and 

submit evidence any medical evidence, if appellant had been treated at its medical facility. Both 

appellant and the employing establishment were afforded 30 days to submit the requested 

information. 

In a June 16, 2005 light-duty request form, Dr. Erwin A. Cruz, a Board-certified 

neurologist, diagnosed headaches and listed appellant’s temporary work restrictions. 

In a December 2, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. It 

noted that she failed to respond to its October 17, 2014 request for additional factual information. 

OWCP found that appellant had not submitted rationalized medical evidence to establish a 

medical condition or disability causally related to her work factors. Consequently, OWCP found 

that she failed to establish an injury as alleged. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3

 has the burden of establishing the essential 

elements of his or her claim, including the fact that the individual is an employee of the United 

States within the meaning of FECA; that the claim was filed within the applicable time 

limitation; that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged and that any 

disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the 

employment injury.4

 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.5

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing the 

presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) a factual 

statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence 

or occurrence of the disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the 

employment factors identified by the claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for 

 2

 Appellant retired from the employing establishment on February 28, 2014. 

3

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

4 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

5 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 
3

which compensation is claimed or, stated differently, medical evidence establishing that the 

diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant. 

The medical evidence required to establish a causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion 

evidence. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background of the employee, must be one of reasonable certainty, and must be supported by 

medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and 

the specific employment factors identified by the employee.6

 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant must establish all of the elements of her claim in order to prevail. She must 

prove her employment, the time, place, and manner of injury, a resulting personal injury and that 

her injury arose in the performance of duty.7

 Appellant alleged that she sustained a neck and 

bilateral shoulder, wrist, and knee condition as a result of her federal employment duties as a 

sales service associate clerk. 

Appellant did not present a clear factual statement identifying employment factors 

alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or condition. 

In this case, appellant has not explained how work duties caused or aggravated her claimed neck 

and bilateral shoulder, wrist and knee conditions. 

On October 17, 2014 OWCP informed appellant that the evidence received to date was 

insufficient to establish that she experienced any employment factors that were alleged to have 

caused an injury. Appellant was asked to provide a detailed description of the employmentrelated activities she believed contributed to her condition and how often she performed the 

described activities. OWCP afforded her 30 days to submit this additional evidence. Appellant 

did not provide any statement responding to OWCP’s inquiry. Dr. Cruz’s June 16, 2005 report 

dates back more than eight years before appellant’s dates of awareness and while he sets forth 

her work restrictions, he fails to describe her employment duties. 

Thus, the Board finds that appellant has not sufficiently identified employment factors 

alleged to have caused or contributed to her claimed neck and bilateral shoulder, wrist, and knee 

conditions to meet her burden of proof.8

As appellant has not established the factual component of her claim, the Board will not 

address the medical evidence with respect to causal relationship.9

On appeal, appellant contended that her claimed injuries were caused by her federal 

employment. As discussed, she did not adequately describe the employment duties which she 

alleged caused her injuries. The Board has held that the mere fact that a condition manifests 

 6 I. J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, supra note 5 at 351-52.

7 See R.Z., Docket No. 13-1911 (issued September 15, 2014). 

8 Id. 

9 See Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006). 
4

itself during a period of employment does not raise an inference of causal relation.10 An award 

of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture, speculation or on the employee’s own 

belief of causal relation.11 Appellant failed to provide evidence to prove the fact of injury, its 

time, place, and manner and that the injury was causally related to her federal employment. 

Because she did not submit sufficient evidence demonstrating the alleged occupational exposure 

actually occurred as alleged, she did not meet her burden of proof. 

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 did not meet her burden of proof to establish neck and 

bilateral shoulder, wrist, and knee injuries causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 2, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: April 27, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 10 Daniel O. Vasquez, 57 ECAB 559 (2006). 

11 D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006).