United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.B., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Rivers Edge, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-290 

Issued: May 4, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

John Hennessy, for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 20, 2014 appellant, through his representative, filed a timely appeal from 

an August 4, 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 over the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 24, 2014 appellant, then a 36-year-old city mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging that on June 24, 2014 he sustained injuries to his back and right hip as a result of a 

motor vehicle accident. He alleged that he was struck by another driver who ran a red light. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

Appellant stopped work on that day and returned on June 27, 2014. On the claim form, he listed 

his street address. 

Appellant submitted June 24, 2014 records and a disability status report from an 

emergency department which advised that he was able to return to work on June 27, 2014. 

By letter dated July 1, 2014, OWCP notified appellant that evidence was insufficient to 

establish his claim and advised him of the type of evidence needed. The letter was sent to an 

address with a different street designation than that provided on the notice of traumatic injury. 

By decision dated August 4, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because medical 

evidence did not establish a medical condition diagnosed in connection with the work event. The 

decision was also sent to an incorrect address. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the evidence.2 While a claimant has the 

burden to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares responsibility in the development 

of the evidence.3

In administering FECA, OWCP must attempt to obtain any evidence which is necessary 

for the adjudication of the case which is not received when the notice or claim is submitted. To 

adjudicate claims promptly and manage them effectively, it should choose the most efficient, 

direct, and proactive approach, given the individual circumstances of a claim and the nature of 

injury. OWCP must provide information to the claimant about the procedures involved in 

establishing a claim, including instructions for developing the required evidence.4

 

If the claimant submits factual evidence, medical evidence, or both, but OWCP 

determines that this evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof, it will inform the 

claimant of the additional evidence needed. The claimant will be allowed at least 30 days to 

submit the evidence required.5

 

It is presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that a notice mailed to an 

individual in the ordinary course of business was received by that individual.6 This presumption 

arises when it appears from the record that the notice was properly addressed and duly mailed.7 

 2 Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005). 

3 See Peter C. Belkind, 56 ECAB 580 (2005). 

4

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Development of Claims, Chapter 2.800.4.c(1) 

(June 2011). 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.121. 

6 George F. Gidicsin, 36 ECAB 175 (1984) (when OWCP sends a letter of notice to a claimant, it must be 

presumed, absent any other evidence, that the claimant received the notice). 

7 Michelle R. Littlejohn, 42 ECAB 463 (1991). 
3

The appearance of a properly addressed copy in the case record, together with the mailing 

custom or practice of the sender, will raise a presumption that the original was received by the 

addressee. This is known as the mailbox rule.8

 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP did not mail its July 1, 2014 development letter and August 4, 2014 decision to 

the correct address as it appeared on appellant’s claim form. It did not use the correct street 

designation. On appellant’s claim form the street designation is listed as “street.” However, 

OWCP mailed correspondence using “avenue” as the street designation. 

OWCP did not become aware of the error or change the address in its records before 

issuing its August 4, 2014 decision. Because OWCP did not mail its development letter to 

appellant’s current home address, the presumption of receipt under the mailbox rule did not arise. 

It effectively denied his claim without proper notice and 30 days to respond.9 

Accordingly, the Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision. The Board will 

set aside OWCP’s August 4, 2014 decision denying appellant’s claim. The case is remanded for 

issuance of a development letter to his proper home address and 30 days to submit the required 

evidence.10 After such further development as may be necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo

decision on appellant’s claim. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision. Further development is 

warranted. 

 8 Larry L. Hill, 42 ECAB 596 (1991) (the presumption of receipt under the mailbox rule must apply equally to 

claimants and OWCP alike). 

9 L.R., Docket No. 14-361 (issued June 5, 2014) (remanding the case to OWCP when the development letter was 

not sent to the address shown on appellant’s claim form). 

10 See id. 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 5, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case remanded for further action 

consistent with this decision. 

Issued: May 4, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board