United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

F.R., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Chicago, IL, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0712 

Issued: July 19, 2017 

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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 1, 20171 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 11, 2016 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act2

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction over the merits of this case.3

 1

 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from August 11, 2016, the date of OWCP’s last decision was 

February 7, 2017. Since using February 8, 2017, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the postmark is considered the date of filing. The date of 

the U.S. Postal Service postmark is February 1, 2017, rendering the appeal timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1). 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

3

 Appellant submitted new evidence on appeal. The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the evidence that 

was before OWCP at the time of the final decision on appeal. Therefore, this additional evidence cannot be 

considered by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has established a fracture of the right lesser toes causally 

related to the accepted August 1, 2016 employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 4, 2016 appellant, then a 67-year-old tractor trailer operator, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 1, 2016 a dock plate struck his left foot while 

in the performance of duty.4

 In a brief note dated August 1, 2016, he indicated that he tried to 

pull up a dock plate that was stuck, and the plate came up and fell on his right foot. 

In a form report dated August 1, 2016, Dr. Jose Ayala, a Board-certified family 

practitioner, diagnosed laceration without foreign body of right lesser toes and displaced 

unspecified fracture of the right lesser toes. He wrote that appellant could return to work if 

sitting 100 percent of the time. In an additional form report dated August 2, 2016, Dr. Ayala 

diagnosed laceration without foreign body of the right lesser toes. He reported that appellant 

must use crutches and could not drive. 

The record also contains a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated August 1, 2016.5

 The 

physician diagnosed right foot trauma. 

By decision dated August 11, 2016, OWCP accepted laceration of right lesser toes 

without foreign body. It also found that the diagnosis of displaced fracture of the right lesser 

toes was not established as employment related. OWCP advised appellant that he should 

forward more specific documentation from his treating physician, such as diagnostic notes, to 

establish that the diagnosed displaced fracture of the right lesser toes was employment related. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA6

 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including that any disability or specific condition for 

which compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury.7

 To establish 

causal relationship between a diagnosed condition and the employment injury, the opinion of the 

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of reasonable medical 

certainty and supported by sound medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and federal employment. The weight of medical evidence is 

 4

 While appellant wrote on the claim form that he injured his left foot, his additional statement and the medical 

evidence clearly indicate the injury was to the right foot. 

5

 The physician’s signature on the form is illegible. 

6 Supra note 2. 

7 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 
3

determined by its reliability, its probative value, its convincing quality, the care of the analysis 

manifested, and the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.8

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted laceration of the right lesser toes, without foreign body, as causally 

related to the August 1, 2016 employment incident. The August 11, 2016 OWCP decision also 

found that another diagnosed condition, open displaced fracture of the right lesser toes, was not 

accepted. 

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that the evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish a fracture of the right lesser toes causally related to the August 1, 2016 

employment injury. 

OWCP procedures provide that if multiple conditions have been claimed and the 

evidence submitted supports acceptance of some, but not all, of the conditions and the remaining 

conditions have not been developed, the claims examiner should issue an acceptance letter for 

the compensable conditions and concurrently issue a development letter for the remaining 

claimed conditions. The development may be undertaken in either the acceptance letter itself or 

by separate correspondence.9

Dr. Ayala had diagnosed a fracture in his August 1, 2016 form report, without further 

explanation. He did not provide a history of injury, results on examination, or a rationalized 

medical opinion explaining causal relationship between the diagnosed fracture and the August 1, 

2016 employment injury. Medical evidence that consists primarily of a diagnosis, without other 

indicia of a probative medical report such as a history, results on examination, and an opinion on 

causal relationship, is of limited probative value.10 The Board notes that in his August 2, 2016 

report, Dr. Ayala no longer provided a diagnosis of the right lesser toes fracture. 

It is appellant’s burden of proof to establish a specific condition as employment related. 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof.11 The only adverse finding by 

OWCP was the August 11, 2016 determination that the right lesser toes fracture was not causally 

related to the August 1, 2016 employment injury. 

For the reasons discussed, the Board finds that appellant has not established a diagnosed 

fracture as causally related to the accepted August 1, 2016 employment injury. 

 8 Jennifer Atkerson, 55 ECAB 317, 319 (2004). 

9

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Acceptances, Chapter 2.806.4(b) (June 2011). 

10 See E.C., Docket No. 16-0900 (issued September 2, 2016); I.B., Docket No. 16-1095 (issued August 1, 2016). 

11 On appeal appellant submitted time analysis forms indicating that he was off work from September 19 to 

October 17, 2016 for “therapy.” The record reflects however that appellant was reimbursed for leave without pay 

for the period September 19 through October 28, 2016. 
4

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 established a fracture of the right lesser toes 

causally related to the accepted August 1, 2016 employment injury. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated August 11, 2016 is affirmed. 

Issued: July 19, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board