United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.J., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MAIN POST OFFICE, 

Beverly Hills, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-2030 

Issued: January 26, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 23, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 14, 2014 merit 

decision and a June 11, 2014 nonmerit 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.2

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has established a right knee condition causally 

related to factors of her federal employment; and (2) whether OWCP properly denied her 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

 Appellant submitted new evidence on appeal. The Board, however, has no jurisdiction to review new evidence 

on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 18, 2014 appellant, then a 55-year-old carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim alleging degeneration of the cartilage in her right knee and a torn meniscus causally related 

to factors of her federal employment. She related that she first became aware of her condition 

and its relationship to her federal employment on June 1, 2004. Appellant was last exposed to 

the conditions alleged to have caused her condition on February 18, 2014. 

In an accompanying statement dated February 13, 2014, appellant related that she began 

experiencing knee pain while working as a letter carrier in 2004. She began working light duty 

in 2005. In 2007 appellant began working as a supervisor and again experienced knee pain when 

she walked routes to confirm street times. In 2013 supervisors had to stand and walk on concrete 

for three hours each day until carriers left the building, which aggravated her knee condition. 

Appellant related that she had no remaining cartilage in her right knee and needed a total knee 

replacement. She indicated that she delayed filing an occupational disease claim because she 

thought she could “make it until retirement.” 

By letter dated February 21, 2014, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional 

factual and medical information, including a detailed medical report addressing the causal 

relationship between any diagnosed condition and the identified work factors. 

A December 11, 2012 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan study of appellant’s right 

knee revealed a small tear of the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus, degeneration of the 

posterior horn of the medial meniscus, degenerative changes of the knee with cartilaginous 

thinning especially at the patellofemoral compartment, and joint effusion. 

In a progress report dated March 6, 2014, Dr. Amanuel Sima, a Board-certified internist, 

evaluated appellant for severe knee pain bilaterally that had worsened over the past three months. 

He reviewed MRI scan studies of the right and left knee dated July 2013. Dr. Sima stated, “She 

was taken off work on February 28, 2014 due to the severity of her bilateral knee pain and 

related debility. Of note, her knee arthritis dates back to 2004.” He diagnosed severe knee 

osteoarthritis bilaterally, debility, chronic pain, and low back pain. Dr. Sima found that appellant 

should remain off work and noted that she was being evaluated for a total right knee 

replacement. 

By decision dated April 14, 2014, OWCP found that appellant established a timely claim, 

and that the employment factor occurred, and a medical condition had been diagnosed, however, 

it denied her claim on the grounds that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish that she 

sustained a diagnosed condition causally related to the identified work factors. The record 

indicates that appeal rights accompanied the decision. 

In a report of telephone call dated April 22, 2014, appellant requested a copy of her 

appeal rights. 

In a report dated April 22, 2014, received by OWCP on May 21, 2014, Dr. Sima 

attributed appellant’s bilateral knee arthritis to working for 24 years as a mail carrier. 
3

By form dated May 15, 2014 and postmarked May 19, 2014, appellant requested a review 

of the written record by an OWCP hearing representative. In an accompanying statement dated 

May 15, 2014, she described her knee problems beginning in 2004 and the aggravation of her 

condition in 2013 when she had to stand for prolonged periods as a supervisor. Appellant related 

that she did not receive a copy of the appeal request form with the decision. She contacted 

OWCP for a copy, which she received on April 26, 2014. Appellant submitted a May 15, 2014 

report from Dr. Man R. Shim, a Board-certified internist, who opined that she might require 

surgery due to her knee arthritis. 

By decision dated June 11, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s request for a review of the 

written record as it was not postmarked within 30 days of the April 14, 2014 merit decision. It 

considered her request within its discretion but found that her case could be addressed equally 

well by a request for reconsideration and the submission of evidence showing a causal 

relationship between her claimed condition and the identified work factors. 

On appeal appellant attributes her knee injury to performing her work duties as a letter 

carrier. She initially experienced pain in 2004 and in 2005 began working light duty. In 2013 

appellant had to stand extensively on concrete which worsened her knee injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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.4 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.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;6 (2) a 

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

presence or occurrence of the disease or condition;7

 and (3) medical evidence establishing that 

the diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant.8 

The medical opinion must be one of reasonable medical certainty and must be supported by 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

4 Tracey P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

5 See Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 

6 Michael R. Shaffer, 55 ECAB 386 (2004). 

7 Marlon Vera, 54 ECAB 834 (2003); Roger Williams, 52 ECAB 468 (2001). 

8 D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006); Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238 (2005).
4

medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and 

the specific employment factors identified by the claimant.9

 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

Appellant attributed her condition to her employment as a letter carrier in 2004, walking 

routes to confirm street times as a supervisor beginning in 2007, and standing and walking on 

concrete as a supervisor in 2013. OWCP accepted the occurrence of the claimed employment 

factors. The issue, therefore, is whether the medical evidence establishes a causal relationship 

between the claimed conditions and the identified employment factors. 

On March 6, 2014 Dr. Sima discussed appellant’s complaints of bilateral severe knee 

pain that had increased over the past three months. He noted that she had knee arthritis 

beginning in 2004 and stopped work on February 28, 2013 due to debilitating knee pain. 

Dr. Sima diagnosed bilateral severe knee osteoarthritis, debility, chronic pain, and low back pain. 

He found that appellant should remain off work. Dr. Sima, however, did not address the cause of 

the diagnosed conditions or relate them to the identified work factors. Medical evidence that 

does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of diminished 

probative value on the issue of causal relationship.10 

On appeal appellant describes the work factors to which she attributed her knee 

condition. However, as explained above, the record does not contain rationalized medical 

evidence supporting that she sustained a right knee condition as a result of her work duties. 

Consequently, appellant has not met her burden of proof. 

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 and 

20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

Section 8124(b) 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.11 Section 

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

shall be afforded a choice of an oral hearing or a review of the written record.12 The request 

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

 9 Id. 

10 S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009); Conard Hightower, 54 ECAB 796 (2003). 

11 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1). 

12 20 C.F.R. § 10.615. 
5

date of the decision for which a hearing is sought.13 A claimant is entitled to a hearing or review 

of the written record as a matter of right if the request is filed within 30 days.14

While a claimant may not be entitled to a hearing or review of the written record 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.15

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

In a decision dated April 14, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. 

The record indicates that appeal rights accompanied the decision. Appellant sought a review of 

the written record on a form postmarked May 19, 2014. By decision dated June 11, 2014, 

OWCP denied her request for a review of the written record as untimely under section 8124 of 

FECA. As appellant’s request for a hearing was postmarked May 19, 2014, more than 30 days 

after OWCP issued its April 14, 2014 decision, she was not entitled to a hearing as a matter of 

right. 

OWCP has the discretionary power to grant a hearing or review of the written record 

when a claimant is not entitled to a hearing or review as a matter or right.16 It properly exercised 

its discretion by stating that it had considered the matter in relation to the issue involved and 

denied appellant’s request for a review of the written record on the basis that the case could be 

resolved by submitting additional evidence to OWCP with a reconsideration request. The Board 

has held that the only limitation on OWCP’s discretionary authority is reasonableness. An abuse 

of discretion is generally shown through proof of manifest error, clearly unreasonable exercise of 

judgment, or actions taken which are contrary to both logic and probable deduction from 

established facts.17 In this case, the evidence of record does not establish that OWCP committed 

any action in connection with its denial of appellant’s request for a review of the written record 

which could be found to be an abuse of discretion. Consequently, OWCP properly denied her 

request for an oral hearing as untimely under section 8124 of FECA. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established that she sustained a right knee 

condition causally related to factors of her federal employment. The Board further finds that 

OWCP properly denied her request for a review of the written record as untimely under section 

8124 of FECA. 

 13 Id. at § 10.616(a). 

14 See Leona B. Jacobs, 55 ECAB 753 (2004). 

15 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(b); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Hearings and Reviews of the 

Written Record, Chapter 2.1601.4(a) (October 2011). 

16 Afegalai L. Boone, 53 ECAB 533 (2002). 

17 See L.W., 59 ECAB 471 (2008). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 11 and April 14, 2014 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: January 26, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board