United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

I.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Munster, IN, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1318 

Issued: December 10, 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 May 26, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 21, 2015 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 established an injury in the performance of duty on 

February 9, 2015, as alleged. 

On appeal, appellant contends that he did everything he could to get his doctor’s report to 

OWCP timely. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 19, 2015 appellant, then a 50-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 9, 2015 he “slipped on ice while carrying in the 

dark and fell.” He indicated that, as a result thereof, he sustained injuries to his back and 

shoulder. In support of his claim appellant submitted a February 17, 2015 duty status report. He 

also submitted an “Authorization for Examination or Treatment Form” that was signed on 

February 20, 2015. In this form, a physician completed “Part B -- Attending Physician’s 

Report.” The handwritten answers on this form are largely illegible, as is the physician’s 

signature. The physician checked a box marked “yes” indicating that he believed that appellant’s 

condition was caused or aggravated by the employment activity, and he further indicated that 

appellant was totally disabled beginning February 17, 2015 until an undetermined date. 

By letter dated March 19, 2015, OWCP informed appellant that further information was 

needed in support of his claim. Appellant did not respond to this letter. 

By decision dated April 21, 2015, OWCP noted that when the claim was first received, it 

appeared to be for a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time from work and that 

based on this criteria, plus the fact that the employing establishment did not controvert 

continuation of pay or challenge the merits of the case, payment of a limited amount of medical 

expenses was administratively approved without consideration of the merits of the claim. 

However, as OWCP became aware that appellant had returned to work in a full-time capacity, it 

conducted a merit review of appellant’s case. It found that, although the evidence established 

that the event occurred as alleged, the claim was denied as appellant had not submitted medical 

evidence containing a firm medical diagnosis in connection with the injury and or events. 

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.2

 

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.3

 In 

order to meet his burden of proof to establish the fact that he sustained an injury in the 

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

3 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Fact of Injury, Chapter 2.803(2)(a) (August 2012). 
3

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.4

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

generally can be established only by medical evidence.5 The medical evidence required to 

establish causal relationship is usually rationalized medical evidence. Rationalized medical 

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.6

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that on February 9, 2015 he suffered injuries to his back and shoulder 

when he slipped on ice during the performance of his federal duties. OWCP accepted that the 

incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s claim finding that he failed to 

establish a firm medical diagnosis and failed to establish that this diagnosis was causally related 

to the employment incident of February 9, 2015. The Board finds that appellant has not 

submitted medical evidence that establishes a firm medical condition causally related to the 

accepted employment incident. 

The medical evidence submitted prior to OWCP’s decision was limited to a duty status 

report and an attending physician’s report on an authorization for treatment form. Both of these 

documents are largely illegible. The Board cannot read the physician’s signature on either 

document and therefore the documents cannot constitute competent medical evidence.7 

Furthermore, the Board notes that both of these documents contain conclusions with regard to 

appellant’s medical condition, its relationship to his employment, and his work capacity but 

without a detailed narrative explaining these conclusions. 

A medical diagnosis and an opinion on causal relationship must be based on rationalized 

medical opinion evidence.8

 A physician must accurately describe appellant’s work duties and 

medically explain the process by which these duties would have caused or aggravated his 

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

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

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

7 See Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572 (1988). 

8 M.E., Docket No. 14-1064 (issued September 29, 2014). 
4

condition.9 Because appellant has not provided such medical opinion evidence in this case, he 

failed to meet his burden of proof. 

The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence after OWCP issued its 

decision. Appellant contends on appeal that he did everything he could to timely get this 

information to OWCP and that any delay was an error on the part of the physician’s office. The 

Board lacks jurisdiction to review new evidence for the first time on appeal.10 Appellant may 

submit this evidence to OWCP with a formal request for reconsideration 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 has not established an injury in the performance of duty on 

February 9, 2015, as alleged. 

 9 Solomon Polen, 51 ECAB 341 (2000) (rationalized medical evidence must relate specific employment factors 

identified by the claimant to claimant’s condition, with stated reasons by a physician). See also V.S., Docket No. 

14-2028 (issued June 3, 2015). 

10 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c) (the Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before 

OWCP at the time of the final decision). 
5

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated April 21, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: December 10, 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