United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.R., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, 

Fresno, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1716 

Issued: November 17, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 17, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 9, 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has established an injury causally related to factors of his 

federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 20, 2015 appellant, then a 40-year-old medical clerk, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed a pinched nerve and possible injured disc 

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

in his cervical spine as a result of his nonergonomic workspace. He stated that he was in need of 

a wireless headset. Appellant first became aware of his condition on April 14, 2014 and of its 

relationship to his employment on February 27, 2015. He did not stop work. 

In medical reports dated March 2 through April 7, 2015 Dr. Hongjing Tan, Boardcertified in physical medicine and rehabilitation, diagnosed right arm paresthesia and cervical 

radiculopathy. Appellant related a history, beginning on April 14, 2014 that his “pinky” started 

to go numb. His workstation was evaluated by an occupational therapist who informed him that 

the numbness could be associated with his nerves. Appellant also related to Dr. Tan that on 

February 27, 2015 he had right arm numbness, pain, and tingling as well as right shoulder pain. 

Appellant stated that he was right-hand dominant and his job involved using a telephone and 

computer repetitively. For years he frequently held his telephone between his shoulder and head. 

In his March 2, 2015 report, Dr. Tan noted that he was unable to determine whether appellant’s 

employment contributed to his complaints without further medical investigation and job analysis. 

On March 16, 2015 appellant informed Dr. Tan that he would be provided a blue-tooth headset at 

work soon. 

By letter dated April 16, 2015, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of record was 

insufficient to support his claim. Appellant was advised of the medical and factual evidence 

necessary to establish his claim and was asked to respond to a questionnaire within 30 days. 

OWCP requested that he describe in detail the employment-related activities which he believed 

contributed to his condition, how often he performed the activities described, the length and 

period of the described activities, how long he worked for his employing establishment as a 

medical clerk, and activities he engaged in outside of his federal employment. 

In an April 23, 2015 narrative statement, appellant responded to an OWCP questionnaire, 

stating that he held his current position for the past nine years, which entailed sitting at a 

computer workstation, and making and answering telephone calls. He explained that his station 

was not ergonomically correct and he was never provided with a wireless headset, which he 

believed contributed to his current cervical condition. Appellant further stated that he performed 

his work activities daily. The average telephone call duration was approximately 5 minutes and 

longer calls could take 10 to 15 minutes. Appellant answered calls throughout the day while 

sitting at a computer except when taking breaks and at lunch time. He stated that his work 

activities caused him pain, numbness, and tingling which affected his right hand, arm, shoulder, 

and right side of his neck on a daily basis. Appellant described his hobbies which included 

jogging two to three times a week and occasional fishing one to two times a month. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted medical reports dated April 6 through 

June 24, 2015 from Dr. Tan documenting his treatment for cervical radiculopathy and right arm 

paresthesia. 

By decision dated July 9, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the evidence 

of record failed to establish that the occupational exposure occurred as alleged. It noted that he 

failed to establish fact of injury because the description of his employment duties was too vague. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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 or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the 

employment injury.2 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.3

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

occupational disease, an employee must submit: (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 evidence establishing that the diagnosed 

condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the employee.4

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for a decision. 

Appellant must establish all of the elements of his claim in order to prevail. He must 

prove his employment, the time, place, and manner of injury, a resulting personal injury, and that 

his injury arose in the performance of duty. In its July 9, 2015 decision, OWCP found that 

appellant had not established that the occupational exposure occurred as alleged. The Board 

finds, however, that the evidence of record is sufficient to establish that he engaged in repetitive 

employment duties as a medical clerk. 

On his Form CA-1, appellant stated that his workstation was not ergonomically sound 

and that he was in need of a wireless headset. OWCP provided him with a series of questions on 

April 16, 2015 requesting additional information pertaining to the employment factors alleged to 

have caused his injury. Appellant responded to each question posed on April 23, 2015. He 

sufficiently explained that he was a medical clerk for nine years which entailed sitting at a 

computer workstation daily to make and receive telephone calls. Appellant stated that, as he was 

not provided with a wireless headset to facilitate answering and making daily telephone calls, 

this necessitated him having to hold the telephone between his right shoulder and his head. He 

pointed out that he was right-hand dominant and his job required him to use the telephone and 

computer continually. Appellant specified that he was not provided a wireless headset and thus, 

the daily calls contributed to his condition. He further noted that the average telephone call was 

5 minutes while longer calls could take 10 to 15 minutes. Appellant explained that his duties 

                                                             2 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1154 (1989). 

3 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

4 See Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994). 
4

entailed answering telephone calls all day other than when he was at lunch or on a break and 

described the injuries he believed were work related. He further described his hobbies. 

Appellant has provided sufficient detail to establish that an occupational exposure 

occurred as alleged and there has been no evidence presented to dispute these alleged 

employment factors.5 The Board finds that he adequately described the circumstances of his 

injury, what his injury was, how he injured his right shoulder, arm, and hand, and the duties he 

was performing which caused his injury. Thus, the Board finds that, given the above-referenced 

evidence, appellant has alleged with specificity that the occupational exposure occurred at the 

time, place, and in the manner alleged.6

 

Given that appellant has established his repetitive employment duties as a medical clerk, 

the question becomes whether he sustained an injury due to this occupational exposure. 

OWCP’s July 9, 2015 decision did not make findings related to the medical evidence of record. 

Given that appellant established an occupational exposure, consideration of the medical evidence 

is necessary.7

 As fact of injury is a material point in a compensation case and, because of its 

materiality, OWCP must clearly state whether fact of injury is accepted and, if fact of injury is 

not accepted, OWCP must clearly specify the basis for denial.8

Appellant has submitted medical evidence which has not been evaluated by OWCP. 

OWCP procedures specify that a final decision of OWCP must include findings of fact and 

provide clear reasoning which allows the claimant to understand the precise defect of the claim 

and the kind of evidence which would tend to overcome it.9

 

For these reasons, the case will be remanded to OWCP to enable it to properly consider 

all of the evidence in determining whether appellant had an injury causally related to factors of 

his employment. Following such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue 

an appropriate de novo decision on the claim. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant established that an occupational exposure occurred as 

alleged. The case will be remanded to determine if he developed an injury as a result of his 

accepted employment duties as a medical clerk. 

                                                             5 C.f. Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215, 218 (1997). 

6 See Willie J. Clements, 43 ECAB 244 (1991). 

7 C.f. Bonnie A. Contreas, 57 ECAB 364, 368 n.10 (2006). 

8 See Elaine Pendleton, supra note 2. 

9 See L.R., Docket No. 15-0255 (issued April 1, 2015); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.126. 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 9, 2015 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

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

this decision. 

Issued: November 17, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board