United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.K., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Santa Clarita, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1232 

Issued: August 20, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 12, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from an Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs’ (OWCP) merit decision dated December 31, 2014 and a nonmerit 

decision dated March 25, 2015. 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 has met his burden of proof to establish that he 

sustained a right-sided carpal tunnel condition in the performance of duty; and (2) whether 

OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for a review of the written record as untimely under 5 

U.S.C. § 8124. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 16, 2014 appellant, a 65-year-old letter carrier, filed a Form CA-2 claim for 

an occupational disease, alleging that he developed a right-sided carpal tunnel condition causally 

related to employment factors. 

On November 20, 2014 OWCP advised appellant that it required factual and medical 

evidence to determine whether he was eligible for compensation benefits. It asked him to submit 

a comprehensive report from a treating physician describing his symptoms and the medical 

reasons for his condition, with an opinion as to whether his claimed condition was causally 

related to his federal employment. OWCP requested that appellant submit this evidence within 

30 days. Appellant did not submit any medical evidence. 

By decision dated December 31, 2014, OWCP denied the claim, finding that he failed to 

submit medical evidence establishing that he sustained a right-sided carpal tunnel condition in 

the performance of duty. 

On February 19, 2015 OWCP received a request for a review of the written record. The 

form was postmarked February 10, 2015. Appellant submitted a supplemental statement, as well 

as medical reports from Dr. Kent Simmons-Eldrageely,2 and Dr. Michael Davies, a specialist in 

occupational medicine. 

By decision dated March 25, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s request for a review of the 

written record on the basis that the request was untimely. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3

 has the burden of establishing that 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.4

 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.5

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing the 

presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) a factual 

statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence 

 2

 The physician’s credentials could not be verified. 

3

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

4 Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

5 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 
3

or occurrence of the disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the 

employment factors identified by the claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for 

which compensation is claimed, or, stated differently, medical evidence establishing that the 

diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant. 

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 -- ISSUE 1 

In the instant case, appellant has failed to submit any medical opinion containing a 

rationalized, probative report which relates his claimed right-sided carpal tunnel condition to 

factors of his employment. For this reason, he has not discharged his burden of proof to 

establish his claim that his condition was sustained in the performance of duty. 

An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture, or speculation. 

Neither the fact that appellant’s condition became apparent during a period of employment nor 

the belief that his condition was caused, precipitated, or aggravated by his employment is 

sufficient to establish causal relationship.7

 Causal relationship must be established by 

rationalized medical opinion evidence and appellant failed to submit such evidence. 

OWCP advised appellant of the evidence required to establish his claim and requested 

same. However, appellant failed to submit such evidence. Consequently, he has not met his 

burden of proof in establishing that his claimed right-sided carpal tunnel condition is causally 

related to his employment. 

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. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

Section 8124(b)(1) of FECA provides that a claimant for compensation not satisfied with 

a decision of the Secretary is entitled, on request made within 30 days after the date of the 

issuance of the decision, to a hearing on his claim before a representative of the Secretary.8 

Section 10.615 of the federal regulations implementing this section of FECA provides that a 

 6 Id.

7 Id.

8

 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1). 
4

claimant shall be afforded a choice of an oral hearing or a review of the written record.9 The 

request must be sent within 30 days (as determined by postmark or other carrier’s date marking) 

of the date of the decision for which a hearing is sought.10 A hearing is a review of an adverse 

decision by an OWCP hearing representative. Initially, the claimant can choose between two 

formats: an oral hearing or a review of the written record. In addition to the evidence of record, 

the claimant may submit new evidence to the hearing representative.11 A request for either an 

oral hearing or a review of the written record must be submitted, in writing, within 30 days of the 

date of the decision for which the hearing is sought.12 A claimant is not entitled to a hearing if 

the request is not made within 30 days of the date of the decision.13 OWCP has discretion, 

however, to grant or deny a request that is made after this 30-day period.14 In such a case, it will 

determine whether a discretionary hearing should be granted and, if not, will so advise the 

claimant with reasons.15

While a claimant may not be entitled to a hearing as a matter of right if the request is 

untimely, OWCP has the discretionary authority to grant the request and must properly exercise 

such discretion.16

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

On February 10, 2015 appellant requested a review of the written record. Because he did 

not request the review within 30 days of the December 31, 2014 decision, he was not entitled to a 

hearing as a matter of right under section 8124(b)(1). OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review 

exercised its discretion and determined that the issue in the case could be resolved equally well 

through a request for reconsideration and the submission of additional evidence. The Board 

finds that OWCP did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request for a review of the 

written record in its March 25, 2015 decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that he 

sustained a right-sided carpal tunnel condition in the performance of duty. The Board further 

finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for a review of the written record as 

untimely under 5 U.S.C. § 8124. 

 9

 20 C.F.R. § 10.615. 

10 Id. at § 10.616(a). 

11 Id. at § 10.615. 

12 Supra note 10. 

13 James Smith, 53 ECAB 188 (2001). 

14 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(b). 

15 Supra note 13. 

16 See id.; Cora L. Falcon, 43 ECAB 915 (1992); Mary B. Moss, 40 ECAB 640 (1989); Rudolph Bermann, 26 

ECAB 354 (1975). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 25, 2015 and December 31, 2014 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs be affirmed. 

Issued: August 20, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board