United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Hinesville, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1371 

Issued: October 22, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 30, 2014 appellant timely appealed the April 17, 2014 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.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant sustained an injury in the performance of duty on or about 

December 30, 2013. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 27, 2014 appellant, a 64-year-old custodial laborer, filed a claim for injury 

to his lower back and feet, which arose on or about December 30, 2013. He explained that he 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193 (2006). 

2

 The record on appeal contains evidence received after OWCP issued its April 17, 2014 decision. The Board is 

precluded from considering evidence that was not in the case record at the time OWCP rendered its final decision. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1) (2012). 
2

was on his feet maintaining two offices with no help and few breaks. As a result, appellant 

experienced increased lower back pain, as well as pain in the balls of his feet and bilateral heel 

pain.3

On March 12, 2014 OWCP informed appellant that it had not received any 

documentation in support of his latest claim. It advised him to submit a statement describing the 

employment-related activities he believed contributed to his condition. Appellant was also 

instructed to submit medical evidence from a qualified physician regarding his claimed 

condition(s). OWCP afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary factual and medical 

information. 

OWCP did not receive any additional information within the allotted time frame.4

By decision dated April 17, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. 

He failed to establish fact of injury. OWCP noted that it had not received any medical evidence. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

A claimant seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing the essential 

elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence, 

including that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that any specific 

condition or disability claimed is causally related to the employment injury.5

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty, a claimant must 

submit: (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 or occurrence of the disease or condition; 

and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the 

identified employment factors.6

ANALYSIS 

Appellant claimed to have aggravated his lower back and bilateral foot condition on or 

about December 30, 2013. He explained that he was on his feet maintaining two offices with no 

help and few breaks. However, appellant did not submit any medical evidence in support of his 

claim. On March 12, 2014 OWCP advised him to submit medical evidence from a qualified 

 3

 Appellant had a previously accepted occupational disease claim for bilateral plantar fibromatosis, which arose 

on or about September 1, 2005 (xxxxxx524). He also had previously injured his left foot and lower back on 

May 25, 2000 (xxxxxx043). With respect to his current bilateral foot and lumbar complaints, appellant filed a notice 

of recurrence (Form CA-2a) under claim number xxxxxx524. Given his description of events, OWCP treated his 

February 27, 2014 claim as a new occupational disease injury rather than a recurrence. 

4

 Appellant signed and returned OWCP’s March 12, 2014 questionnaire, but he did not provide the requested 

factual information. 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996). Causal relationship is a 

medical question, which generally requires rationalized medical opinion evidence to resolve the issue. See 

Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996). 

6 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989). 
3

physician regarding his claimed condition(s). It afforded appellant a reasonable amount of time 

to substantiate his claim, but no medical evidence was received within the 30-day period. 

Consequently, OWCP denied his occupational disease claim because the record was devoid of a 

medical diagnosis related to his reported occupational exposure. Under the circumstances, the 

Board finds that appellant failed to establish that he sustained an injury in the performance of 

duty. 

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 

Appellant failed to establish that he was injured in the performance of duty on or about 

December 30, 2013. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 17, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 22, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board