United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, FORT WORTH 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Fort Worth, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0165 

Issued: March 3, 2016 

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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 5, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 8, 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.2

 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish left hand, left wrist, 

and bilateral elbow injuries causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 On appeal, appellant submitted additional evidence. However, the Board is precluded from reviewing evidence 

which was not before OWCP at the time it issued its final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 24, 2014 appellant, then a 46-year-old custodian/laborer, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) under File No. xxxxxx429 alleging that on 

September 17, 2013 he first became aware of numbness and weakness in his left hand and left 

wrist, inability to bend, move, or grip with the same hand and wrist, and weakness, giving away, 

burning, and pain in both elbows. He further alleged that on February 17, 2014 he first realized 

that his conditions were caused or aggravated by his federal employment. Appellant maintained 

that on each workday, he repeatedly grasped empty trash cans which cramped his left hand and 

caused pain in both of his elbows, policed workroom floors, and replaced paper towels, toilet 

tissue, and soap receptacles which locked his left hand and wrist. In a March 17, 2014 narrative 

statement, he described his symptoms. Appellant noted that he worked six hours a day, five days 

a week. He contended that his repetitive work duties prevented him from working on computers 

as a hobby. 

In a February 17, 2014 work tolerance limitations form report, Dr. Christopher R. Mann, 

an attending occupational medicine physician, diagnosed bilateral ulnar neuropathy and left 

carpal tunnel syndrome. He advised that appellant could not perform his regular unrestricted job 

assignment, but he could work eight hours a day with restrictions. 

On the Form CA-2 and in an undated narrative statement, the employing establishment 

controverted the claim. It contended that, since November 7, 2013, appellant had been on the 

periodic rolls under claim number xxxxxx098.3

 The employing establishment had 

accommodated him with a modified job six hours a day, five days a week. It related that work 

was available within his restrictions once he returned to work. The employing establishment 

contended that appellant’s computer hobby was likely a contributing factor to his injury. 

By letter dated March 4, 2014, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence submitted was 

insufficient to establish his claim. It afforded him 30 days to submit a factual statement detailing 

the employment-related activities that contributed to his condition and activities outside his 

federal employment and a medical report from an attending physician which included an 

explanation of how his employment activities caused, contributed to, or aggravated his medical 

condition. OWCP requested that the employing establishment submit any medical evidence, if 

appellant had been treated at its medical facility. 

Appellant submitted a December 5, 2013 report from Dr. Scott T. Stoll, a Board-certified 

physiatrist, who noted that electromyogram/nerve conduction studies (EMG/NCS) revealed 

mild-to-moderate bilateral axonometric C8 radiculopathies, mild left neuropraxic carpal tunnel 

syndrome, moderate-to-severe bilateral neuropraxic ulnar neuropathy at the elbows, and bilateral 

cervical paraspinal muscular hypertonicity (muscle spasm). He noted that the diagnosed 

                                                             3

 On September 11, 2009 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx098 for cervical sprain 

sustained on July 4, 2009 while in the performance of duty as a custodian/laborer. On December 17, 2003 it 

accepted his claim for a recurrence of disability beginning November 6, 2013. The claim was expanded to include 

sprain of the left shoulder and upper arm in other unspecified sites, degeneration of cervical intervertebral disc, and 

anxiety disorder. 
3

conditions, except for bilateral cervical paraspinal muscular hypertonicity (muscle spasm), had 

worsened since a January 5, 2012 EMG/NCS. 

In a February 17, 2014 report, Dr. Mann provided appellant’s history, which included his 

employment during the last 13 years as a custodian and the prior three years as a letter carrier at 

the employing establishment. Appellant related to him that on September 17, 2013 he was 

performing his limited-duty job when he experienced an insidious onset of bilateral elbow 

inflammation that radiated tingling and burning down the ulna side of both forearms to the 

hands. He further related that, although he was performing limited-duty work, he still lifted trash 

cans of all sizes and dumped them which required a repetitive wrist-twisting action. Appellant 

also reported bad spells of numbness, tingling, and weakened grip when he mopped for more 

than 15 minutes at a time. Dr. Mann noted the treatment appellant received for his work-related 

cervical injury. He reported findings and reiterated his diagnoses of bilateral ulnar neuropathy 

and left carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Mann opined that appellant sustained bilateral elbow, 

forearm, and wrist injuries as a direct result of the activities he performed most of the last three 

years as a custodian but noted that his injuries were initially irritated by 13 years of frequent arm 

use as a carrier. He noted that appellant was disabled due to severe cervical radiculopathy. 

In a July 18, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. It 

found that he did not respond to its March 4, 2014 request for additional factual information. 

Consequently, OWCP found that appellant failed to establish an injury as alleged. 

On January 8, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration. In an accompanying statement, 

he explained that when he initially stated that he could not work on computers as a hobby, he did 

not mean that he tore down computers and put them back together. Appellant meant that he 

checked his e-mail several times a week. 

In a December 22, 2014 report, Dr. Mann reviewed OWCP’s July 18, 2014 decision and 

contended that appellant’s statements about checking his e-mail and working on computers were 

erroneously described as a hobby and suggested that he actually built computers. He only 

understood that appellant was on the computer briefly most evenings to check his e-mail. Thus, 

Dr. Mann related that he did not list this activity as a hobby or otherwise. On March 2, 2015 he 

contended that the employing establishment violated federal regulations as it required appellant 

to return to work with no supportive medical opinion. Dr. Mann maintained that a return to work 

would worsen the medical conditions in both of his claims, OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx429 and 

xxxxxx098. In a January 12, 2015 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), he indicated with 

an affirmative mark that appellant had cervical degenerative disc with increased radiculopathy, 

cervical sprain, left shoulder sprain, and anxiety disorder caused by the accepted July 4, 2009 

work injury. 

Appellant submitted a January 6, 2015 anesthesia record signed by Martin Simpson, a 

certified registered nurse anesthetist. 

In a March 27, 2015 letter, the employing establishment contested appellant’s request for 

reconsideration. It contended that neither the facts of the claim, nor causal relationship had been 

established. The employing establishment noted that appellant was off work from November 13, 

2013 through February 22, 2015 due to his previous claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx098. 
4

Appellant returned to work on February 23, 2015 for 4.5 hours and then went home. He did not 

return. The employing establishment maintained that appellant had not submitted any medical 

evidence pertaining to the instant claim since February 17, 2014, or any statements to support 

fact of injury. The fact that appellant had not worked since November 13, 2013 indicated there 

was no fact of injury during the performance of duty. 

In a June 8, 2015 decision, OWCP denied modification of the July 18, 2014 decision, 

finding that appellant had not sustained a work-related injury as claimed. It found that the 

factual evidence was too vague and general with respect to the employment factors that he 

attributed to his claimed medical conditions. OWCP also found that Dr. Mann’s March 2, 2015 

report did not provide a rationalized medical opinion to establish a causal relationship between 

appellant’s diagnosed conditions and his federal employment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4

 has the burden to establish 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.5 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.6

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 

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. 

An employee’s statement that an injury occurred at a given time and in a given manner is 

of great probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong or persuasive evidence.7

 

Moreover, an injury does not have to be confirmed by eyewitnesses. The employee’s statement, 

however, must be consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances and his subsequent 

course of action. An employee has not met his or her burden in establishing the occurrence of an 

injury when there are such inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt upon the 

validity of the claim. Circumstances such as late notification of injury, lack of confirmation of 

injury, continuing to work without apparent difficulty following the alleged injury, and failure to 

                                                             4 Supra note 1. 

5 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

6 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

7 R.T., Docket No. 08-408 (issued December 16, 2008); Gregory J. Reser, 57 ECAB 277 (2005). 
5

obtain medical treatment may, if otherwise unexplained, cast doubt on an employee’s statement 

in determining whether a prima facie case has been established.8

ANALYSIS 

Appellant claimed that he sustained left hand, left wrist, and bilateral elbow conditions 

due to performing his work duties. OWCP found that he failed to establish the factual 

component of his claim. The Board finds, however, that the evidence establishes that appellant 

was a custodian/laborer and performed employment duties as such. In his Form CA-2 and 

March 17, 2014 narrative statement, appellant attributed his claimed employment injuries to 

repeatedly grasping empty trash cans, policing workroom floors, and replacing paper towels, 

toilet tissue, and soap receptacles six hours a day, five days a week. The Board notes that there 

is no evidence refuting that the claimed employment factors of grasping trash cans, policing 

workroom floors, and replacing paper towels, toilet tissue, and soap receptacles, occurred as 

alleged. 

Consequently, the Board finds that appellant has established the factual component of 

this claim, including that he grasped empty trash cans, policed workroom floors, and replaced 

paper towels, toilet tissue, and soap receptacles at work. This case shall be remanded to OWCP 

for consideration of the evidence as it relates to the accepted employment factors identified by 

appellant and thereafter issue a de novo decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision and is remanded to OWCP for 

further development. 

                                                             8 Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 8, 2015 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further action consistent with 

this decision of the Board. 

Issued: March 3, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board