United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.H., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Adamsville, AL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0970 

Issued: August 17, 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 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 20, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 8, 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 timely filed an occupational disease claim for 

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

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On November 16, 2014 appellant, then a 64-year-old rural mail carrier, filed an 

occupational disease claim alleging that she sustained injury to her neck, shoulders, arms, back, 

legs, and feet in the performance of duty. She noted that she had shooting pain, stiffness, 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

soreness, muscle spasms, and numbness. Appellant advised that she first became aware of her 

condition and its relation to her federal employment on June 3, 2003. The employing 

establishment advised that she gave her supervisor notice of her condition on 

November 21, 2014. Appellant did not stop work and continued in her position as a rural carrier. 

In a November 24, 2014 statement accompanying the claim, appellant advised that her 

position required repetitive movements including, lifting mail, driving four to five hours a day 

requiring her to turn her neck and shoulders often, entering and exiting her postal vehicle, going 

up and down hills carrying parcels of mail, and walking up and down a ramp to enter and exit the 

post office. She also advised that she fell on the dock at work on January 31, 2014. 

By letter dated December 1, 2014, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s 

claim arguing that most of her conditions were due to age-related degenerative changes or due to 

nonwork factors. Appellant and the employing establishment provided numerous medical 

documents pertaining to a variety of medical conditions since 2003. 

By letter dated December 3, 2014, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies in her 

claim. Appellant was instructed to submit a questionnaire establishing the factual element of her 

claim and was advised of the type of medical evidence needed. 

In an undated statement, appellant related that lifting, casing mail, stretching, reaching, 

driving, delivering parcels, and turning her neck and head aggravated her condition. She further 

noted that she did not have any hobbies or engage in any recreational activities. Appellant also 

provided medical evidence that included a December 16, 2014 report from Dr. Nolan Hudson, a 

Board-certified internist, who noted treating her for neck, back, and knee pain that was 

aggravated by her work duties. 

By decision dated January 8, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim 

as untimely. It found that she did not file her claim within three years of her date of injury, 

June 3, 2003, nor did she notify her immediate supervisor within 30 days of her date of injury. 

On appeal appellant argued that her date of injury was May 15, 2013 not June 18, 2003. 

She noted that her physician diagnosed chronic neck, back, and knee pain that was aggravated by 

her duties at work. Appellant argued that she gave her supervisor notice of a January 2014 fall at 

work, but she was not given medical attention. She further noted that her pain increased 

significantly following her 2014 fall. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8122(a) of FECA provides that an original claim for compensation for disability 

or death must be filed within three years after the injury or death.2 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 aware, of the causal 

relationship between the employment and the compensable disability.3

 The Board has held that, 

 2 Id. at § 8122(a). 

3 Id. at § 8122(b). 
3

if an employee continues to be exposed to injurious working conditions after such awareness, the 

time limitation begins to run on the last date of this exposure.4

 Even if a claim is not timely filed 

within the three-year period of limitation, it would still be regarded as timely under section 

8122(a)(1) if the immediate superior had actual knowledge of his or her alleged 

employment-related injury within 30 days or written notice of the injury was provided within 30 

days pursuant to section 8119.5

 The knowledge must be such as to put the immediate superior 

reasonably on notice of an on-the-job injury or death.6

 The Board has indicated that an 

employee need only be aware of a possible relationship between his or her “condition” and his or 

her employment to commence the running of the applicable statute of limitations.7

In a case of occupational disease, 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 his condition and his employment. When an employee becomes aware or reasonably 

should have been aware that he or she has a condition which has been adversely affected by 

factors of his or 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.8

 Where the employee 

continues in the same employment after he or she reasonably should have been aware that she 

has a condition which has been adversely affected by factors of federal employment, the time 

limitation begins to run on the date of the last exposure to the implicated factors.9 

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has established that she filed a timely claim for 

compensation under the three-year time limitation of section 8122 of FECA. 

In a notice of occupational disease (Form CA-2), appellant advised that she became 

aware of her condition and its relation to her federal employment on June 3, 2003. Although she 

did not file her claim or give notice to her supervisor until 11 years later, she continued her work 

as a rural carrier. Appellant claimed that her duties of lifting, casing mail, stretching, reaching, 

driving, delivering parcels, and turning her neck and head aggravated her condition. As noted, 

the Board has held that, if an employee continues to be exposed to injurious working conditions, 

the time limitation begins to run on the last date of this exposure.10 

 4 See Linda J. Reeves, 48 ECAB 373 (1997). 

5

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8122(a)(1); 8122(a)(2); see also Larry E. Young, 52 ECAB 264 (2001). 

6 Willis E. Bailey, 49 ECAB 511 (1998). 

7 Edward C. Hornor, 43 ECAB 834, 840 (1992). 

8 Larry E. Young, supra note 5. 

9 Id.

10 See id; see also Garyleane A. Williams, 44 ECAB 441 (1993). 
4

Because appellant has filed a timely claim for compensation, the case is remanded to 

OWCP to further develop and adjudicate the claim. Following this and any other development 

that it deems necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision in the case. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant’s claim was timely filed. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 8, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed and the case is remanded to OWCP for further 

development consistent with this decision and order. 

Issued: August 17, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board