United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.B., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Marietta, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1652 

Issued: October 9, 2015 

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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 30, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a July 14, 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 has met her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 Appellant submitted medical evidence to the record which was received by OWCP on August 5, 2015. The 

Board’s jurisdiction is limited to review of evidence which was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. See

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Appellant may submit this evidence with a written request for reconsideration to OWCP 

within one year from the date of this decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128 and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 5, 2015 appellant, a 54-year-old distribution clerk, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2). She explained that 31 years of repetitive motions while sorting and 

distributing letters caused neck, shoulder, and back pain. Appellant did not stop work. 

On June 12, 2015 OWCP advised appellant that it required factual and medical evidence 

to determine whether she was eligible for compensation benefits. It asked her to submit a 

comprehensive report from a treating physician describing her medical condition, with an 

opinion as to whether her claimed condition was causally related to her federal employment. 

OWCP requested that appellant submit this evidence within 30 days. Appellant did not submit 

any evidence in response to this request. 

By decision dated July 14, 2015, OWCP denied the claim finding that appellant failed to 

submit medical evidence establishing a medical condition in the performance of duty. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3

 has the burden of establishing that 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, that an injury was sustained 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.4 These are the essential elements of each and every 

compensation claim regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an 

occupational disease.5

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. 

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is usually rationalized 

medical evidence. Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a 

physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship between the 

claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors. The opinion of the 

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must be 

 3

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

4 Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

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

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 claimant.6

ANALYSIS 

In the instant case, appellant has explained that she performed repetitive duties for 31 

years as a distribution clerk sorting and distributing mail, which caused injuries to her neck, 

shoulders, and back. She has not, however, submitted the necessary medical evidence to 

establish an injury in the performance of her federal employment duties. 

OWCP advised appellant of the medical evidence required to establish her claim. 

However, appellant failed to submit such evidence. Consequently, she has not met her burden of 

proof in establishing an injury in the performance of her federal employment. 

An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture or speculation. 

Neither the fact that appellant’s condition became apparent during a period of employment, nor 

the belief that her condition was caused, precipitated, or aggravated by her employment is 

sufficient to establish causal relationship.7

 No matter how sincere appellant’s belief that an 

injury was sustained as a result of her federal duties, causal relationship must be established by 

rationalized medical opinion evidence and appellant failed to submit such evidence. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to meet her burden of proof to establish an 

injury in the performance of duty. 

 6 Id.

7 Id.
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 14, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs be affirmed. 

Issued: October 9, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board