United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.D., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Hartford, CT, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1317 

Issued: December 8, 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 of 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 established an injury arising out of her federal 

employment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 14, 2014 appellant, then a 52-year-old mail processing clerk, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging right carpal tunnel condition, right trigger hand 

and finger, and right elbow condition due to her employment duties. 

In a December 11, 2014 work excuse note and summary sheet, Karen Bigge, a certified 

physician’s assistant, noted that appellant had been seen and treated in the St. Francis Hospital 

emergency room that day for carpal tunnel condition and trouble sleeping. Appellant was 

released to return to work on December 15, 2014 with no restrictions. 

OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish her 

claim. She was advised as to the medical and factual evidence required to establish her 

occupational disease claim and afforded 30 days from January 20, 2015 to provide this 

information. OWCP informed appellant that under a prior claim (OWCP File No. xxxxxx872), it 

had previously accepted the conditions of right carpal tunnel syndrome and right trigger finger. 

It advised her that she needed to submit sufficient medical evidence to allow OWCP to make a 

determination as to whether this was a new injury or a recurrence under the prior claim. No 

response or evidence was submitted. 

By decision dated April 21, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as she had failed to 

establish fact of injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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.3 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.4 

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in a claim for 

occupational disease, an employee must submit: (1) a factual statement identifying employment 

factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or 

condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition 

for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed 

condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the employee.5

 

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

3 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006). 

4 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

5 D.U., Docket No. 10-144 (issued July 27, 2010); R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008); Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238 

(2005); Donald W. Wenzel, 56 ECAB 390 (2005). 
3

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence generally required to 

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.6 Rationalized medical 

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

whether there is a causal relationship between the employee’s diagnosed condition and the 

compensable employment factors.7

 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete 

factual and medical background of the employee, 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 employee.8 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that her right carpal tunnel condition, right trigger hand and finger, and 

right elbow were due to her employment duties. OWCP denied her claim because she failed to 

establish the factual basis of her claim and because she failed to submit any medical evidence 

supporting her claim. The issue on appeal is whether appellant submitted sufficient evidence to 

support her claim. 

The Board has carefully reviewed the record and finds that there is insufficient factual or 

medical evidence of record to support fact of injury as alleged. 

OWCP informed appellant in a January 20, 2015 letter that the record was devoid of any 

medical or factual evidence to satisfy her burden of proof. Appellant was advised that she had 

the burden of proof to establish that she was injured as a result of her work-related duties. 

OWCP informed her that she needed to submit factual evidence regarding employment duties 

giving rise to the claimed injury and reasoned medical evidence explaining how employment 

duties caused her claimed injury. Appellant was advised to provide a detailed medical report 

from her treating physician, which discussed the nature of her injury and how it was causally 

related to her work duties. 

The only medical evidence submitted by appellant was a work excuse note and a St. 

Francis Hospital visit summary sheet dated December 11, 2014 from Ms. Bigge, a certified 

physician assistant. Physician assistants are not physicians as defined under FECA, and thus 

their opinions are of no probative value.9

 

Because appellant failed to provide the requested factual information or a reasoned 

medical opinion as requested by OWCP to support her claim for compensation within the 

 6 Y.J., Docket No. 08-1167 (issued October 7, 2008); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); D’Wayne Avila, 57 ECAB 

642 (2006). 

7 J.J., Docket No. 09-27 (issued February 10, 2009); Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379 (2006). 

8 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989). 

9

 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2) of FECA provides as follows: physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical 

psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined 

by State law. See B.B., Docket No. 09-1858 (issued April 16, 2010); Roy L. Humphrey, supra note 5. 
4

allotted time frame, the Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish 

her claim. 

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 failed to meet her burden of proof to establish that she 

sustained an injury arising out of her federal employment. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated April 21, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: December 8, 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