United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

West Racine, WI, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 13-1710 

Issued: May 12, 2014 

Appearances: Oral Argument April 22, 2014 

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director. 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 10, 2013 appellant filed a timely appeal from the March 1 and April 18, 2013 

merit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) which denied his 

claim. His appeal is also timely filed from the May 13, 2013 nonmerit decision of OWCP 

denying his request for reconsideration. 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.

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant established that he sustained an employmentrelated injury to his right arm, as alleged; and (2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s 

request for reconsideration under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 16, 2013 appellant, then a 51-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging that on March 3, 2012, while delivering mail, he felt pain in his right forearm and 

sustained a strain. 

In a work status report completed on November 20, 2012, Dr. Michael Birndorf, a 

physician Board-certified in plastic surgery and surgery of the hand, found that appellant could 

return to restricted/alternative/modified duty from November 20 to 25, 2012, and to regular work 

on November 26, 2012. 

By letter dated January 25, 2013, OWCP informed appellant that further information was 

needed in support of his claim. It requested a physician’s opinion addressing the causal 

relationship between the diagnosed condition and the employment incident. 

Appellant submitted a November 20, 2012 letter from Dr. Birndorf who advised that the 

compression of the median nerve was related to activities of flexion and extension of the elbow 

in addition to pronation and supination of the elbow. He noted that the nerve traversed under the 

musculature and the activities could have caused the compression and injury to his median nerve. 

Dr. Birndorf listed appellant’s date of injury as December 14, 2010. 

By decision dated March 1, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that he did 

not establish that his medical condition was causally related to the accepted work incident. 

On March 26, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration. In a March 19, 2013 report, 

Dr. Birndorf noted that appellant was initially diagnosed as having lateral epicondylitis and right 

elbow pain. It became evident, however, that his problems were more distal and seemingly 

related to compression of a nerve. Dr. Birndorf noted that follow-up nerve studies were obtained 

which confirmed a diagnosis of compression of his median nerve in the proximal forearm and his 

care progressed to a surgical decompression. He opined that appellant’s compression of the 

median nerve was related to the activities of flexion and extension and to pronation and 

supination of the elbow. Dr. Birndorf stated that the work activities appellant performed 

involved such activities as repetitive grasping of mail with his right arm, repetitive rotating of 

right arm to place mail in mailboxes and steering his vehicle with his right arm while holding 

mail in his left hand. He noted that the median nerve traverser under the musculature and 

appellant’s work activities could cause compression and injury to the median nerve more 

proximally in the forearm. Dr. Birndorf opined that appellant’s work activities were a direct 

cause of his condition. Appellant also submitted Dr. Birndorf’s November 12, 2012 progress 

notes. 

By decision dated April 18, 2013, OWCP denied modification of the March 1, 2013 

decision. It noted that appellant filed a prior claim in File No. xxxxxx443 alleging a work injury 

on March 3, 2012 that was accepted for a right elbow strain on May 30, 2012. The case was 

expanded to include right lateral epicondylitis on September 13, 2012. OWCP advised that, if 

appellant believed a new incident contributed to a worsening of his diagnosed condition, then a 

new occupational disease claim should be completed; but if the condition arose out of the work 
3

injury in File No. xxxxxx443, appellant should send a statement requesting that the claim be 

amended to include the new condition.2

On April 30, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration. He did not submit new evidence. 

By decision dated May 13, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

without conducting a merit review. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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 timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation period of FECA, that an injury was sustained 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. These are the essential elements of each and every 

compensation claim regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an 

occupational disease.3

 OWCP’s regulations define a traumatic injury as a condition of the body 

caused by a specific event or incident, or series of events or incidents, within a single workday or 

shift. Such condition must be caused by external force, including stress or strain, which is 

identifiable as to time and place of occurrence and member or function of the body affected.4 

In order to determine whether an employee actually sustained an injury in the 

performance of duty, OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been 

established. Generally, fact of injury consists of two components, which must be considered in 

conjunction with one another. The first component to be established is that the employee 

actually experienced the employment incident or exposure, which is alleged to have occurred.5 

In order to meet his or her burden of proof to establish the fact that he or she sustained an injury 

in the performance of duty, an employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or 

she actually experienced the employment injury or exposure at the time, place and in the manner 

alleged.6

The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and 

generally can be established only by medical evidence.7

 The medical evidence required to 

establish causal relationship is usually rationalized medical evidence. Rationalized medical 

 2

 The record indicates that appellant filed five prior claims. File No. xxxxxx443 is appellant’s most recent prior 

claim. 

3 Jussara L. Arcanjo, 55 ECAB 281, 283 (2004). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(e). 

5 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Fact of Injury, Chapter 2.803(2)(a) (June 1995). 

6 Linda S. Jackson, 49 ECAB 486 (1998). 

7 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); Horace Langhorne, 29 ECAB 820 (1978). 
4

opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on the 

issue of whether there is a causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and 

the implicated employment factors. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete 

factual and medical background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable medical 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 claimant.8

ANALYSIS 

OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that he did not establish a causal relationship 

between a March 3, 2012 incident and the medical condition in his right arm. The Board finds 

that this case is not in posture for decision. 

Appellant filed an earlier claim in File No. xxxxxx443. The record does not contain any 

medical evidence submitted in that claim. The record currently on appeal also does not contain 

OWCP’s decisions in that case. Due to the overlapping nature of the claims and the fact that the 

same body part is at issue, File No. xxxxxx443 bears on appellant’s claim in the instant case. 

Without the case record in File No. xxxxxx443, the Board is unable to make a fully informed 

decision as to appellant’s claim. 

Because it is essential for the Board to review the medical evidence contained in File No. 

xxxxxx443 in order to render a full and fair adjudication of the present appeal, the case will be 

remanded for OWCP to consolidate case File No. xxxxxx443 with File No. xxxxxx398.9

 

Reconstruction of the record will be followed by a de novo decision on the merits of the claim, in 

order to protect appellant’s appeal rights. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision as OWCP must consolidate 

the case file in File No. xxxxxx398 and File No. xxxxxx443, and then issue a de novo decision. 

 8 Judith A. Peot, 46 ECAB 1036 (1995); Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276 (1994). 

9 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, File Maintenance and Management, Chapter 2.400.8 

(February 2000). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decisions of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated May 13, April 18 and March 1, 2013 are set aside and the case is 

remanded for further development consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: May 12, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board