United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.C., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Salt Lake City, UT, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-0939 

Issued: July 6, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 18, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 26, 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 6, 2014 appellant, then a 39-year-old rural carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim alleging that she first became aware of her injury and realized that it was caused or 

aggravated by repetitive motion at work on January 2, 2014. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

In a January 13, 2014 letter, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence submitted was 

insufficient to establish her claim. It asked her to submit factual and medical evidence, including 

a detailed description of the employment-related activities that she believed contributed to her 

claimed condition. 

Appellant submitted an unsigned medical report dated January 9, 2014 which contained 

the printed name of Dr. Steven B. Huish, a Board-certified orthopedic hand surgeon. It stated 

that appellant was a mail carrier at the employing establishment and complained of bilateral hand 

pain and numbness. The report listed findings on physical and x-ray examination. Appellant 

was diagnosed as having bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and right de Quervain’s related to her 

employment. An electromyography and nerve conduction studies (EMG/NCS) of the upper 

extremities were recommended. 

Diagnostic testing of appellant’s upper extremities was obtained on January 10, 2014, 

which found all distal latencies, conduction velocities and F-wave latencies normal and 

symmetric. There was no evidence suggestive of median or ulnar neuropathy or cervical 

radiculopathy. A repeat study was recommended in three to six months if appellant’s history and 

examination remained suggestive of median neuropathy at the wrist. 

An unsigned report dated January 14, 2014 which contained Dr. Huish’s printed name 

found that appellant’s EMG/NCS did not show significant nerve compression at the wrist. 

By decision dated February 26, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim on the basis that 

the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish fact of injury. It found that she did not 

establish employment activities that contributed to her claimed condition. 

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 timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation period of FECA and that an injury3

 was sustained in the performance of duty. These 

are the essential elements of each compensation claim, regardless of whether the claim is 

predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4 

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

occupational disease claim, an employee must submit the following: (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 

 2 Id. 

3

 OWCP regulations define an occupational disease or illness as a condition produced by the work environment 

over a period longer than a single workday or shift. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q). 

4 See O.W., Docket No. 09-2110 (issued April 22, 2010); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 
3

evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors 

identified by the employee.5 

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence. 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.6 

 ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant failed to establish an injury while in the performance of 

duty causally related to factors of her federal employment. Appellant’s claim form generally 

referred to repetitive motion as a factor of employment that she believed caused her claimed 

conditions. OWCP’s January 13, 2014 developmental letter specifically requested that appellant 

provide a detailed description of the employment-related activities which she believed 

contributed to her condition. Appellant did not respond with any additional factual evidence. As 

part of her burden of proof, appellant must provide a detailed description of the employment 

factors or conditions that she believes caused or adversely affected the condition or conditions 

for which compensation is claimed.7

 The Board finds, therefore, that she has not established the 

alleged employment activities. Appellant failed to meet her burden of proof.8

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 has not met her burden of proof to establish that she 

sustained an injury in the performance of duty causally related to factors of her federal 

employment. 

 5 See D.R., Docket No. 09-1723 (issued May 20, 2010). See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); 

Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

6 See O.W., supra note 4. 

7 Penelope C. Owens, 54 ECAB 684 (2003). 

8

 Since appellant did not establish the factual component of fact of injury, it is not necessary for the Board to 

consider the medical evidence with respect to causal relationship. D.F., Docket No. 10-1774 (issued 

April 18, 2011). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 26, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.9

 

Issued: July 6, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 9

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge, participated in the preparation of this decision, but was no longer a member 

of the Board effective December 27, 2014.