United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

W.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Fort Worth, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0599 

Issued: June 20, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 8, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 24, 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 met her burden of proof to establish lower back, right leg, 

and right hip conditions causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On November 3, 2015 appellant, then a 56-year-old mail processing clerk, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she experienced discomfort to the lower 

back along with sharp muscle spasms of the right leg and right hip as a result of bending, lifting 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

packages, and lifting sacks of mail in the performance of her federal employment duties. She 

first became aware of her claimed condition on June 24, 2014 and of its relationship to her 

federal employment on November 2, 2015. A supervisor noted that an employing establishment 

controversion would be forthcoming because there was no medical evidence to support her 

claimed conditions or a causal relationship between such conditions and her federal employment. 

By letter dated November 13, 2015, the employing establishment controverted 

appellant’s occupational disease claim. It contended that appellant had not submitted any 

medical evidence to establish the claimed conditions as diagnosed by a physician, nor had 

appellant submitted a report containing a rationalized medical opinion from a physician on the 

issue of the causal relationship between the identified factors of her federal employment and the 

claimed conditions. 

On November 23, 2015 OWCP requested that appellant submit additional factual and 

medical evidence in support of her claim. It noted that appellant had not submitted any medical 

evidence from a physician and asked that appellant respond timely to its inquiries. Appellant 

was afforded 30 days to submit this additional evidence, no response was received. OWCP also 

sent a letter to the employing establishment requesting that it respond to its inquiries regarding 

appellant’s duties of employment. 

By decision dated December 24, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for 

compensation. It found that she had not submitted any evidence containing a diagnosis related to 

her alleged work factors and, thus, fact of injury had not been established. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof 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 or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the 

employment injury.2 These are the essential elements of every compensation claim regardless of 

whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or occupational disease.3

 

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 

 2 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278, 279 (2001); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

3 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313, 315 (1999). 
3

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.4

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged lower back, right leg, and right hip conditions from bending, lifting 

packages, and lifting sacks of mail during the course of her federal employment. The Board 

finds that appellant did not submit any evidence from a qualified physician to establish the 

existence of her claimed conditions. Before a determination can be made that an alleged 

condition was causally related to employment duties, the evidence must establish a diagnosed 

condition.5

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of 

the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed.6 Without such medical evidence 

from a qualified physician containing a diagnosis related to the conditions claimed, appellant has 

not established the existence of the conditions claimed. As such, appellant has failed to establish 

that she had any diagnosed condition resulting from duties of her federal employment and 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(a) 

and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish lower back, 

right leg, and right hip conditions causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

 4 R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008); Ernest St. Pierre, 51 ECAB 623 (2000). 

5 Supra note 4. 

6 Id. 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated December 24, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: June 20, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board