United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.W., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Plano, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1411 

Issued: October 5, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 16, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 11, 2015 nonmerit 

decision and a December 30, 2014 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 the case.2

ISSUES 

The issues are whether: (1) appellant met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty; and (2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request 

for reconsideration without a merit review of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 Appellant submitted new medical evidence on appeal. The Board is precluded from considering the new 

evidence as it was not before OWCP at the time of its decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 29, 2014 appellant, then a 60-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 10, 20133

 she injured her right index finger while 

casing mail. Specifically, she noted hitting her finger on an iron case, full of mail. Appellant 

stopped work on September 9, 2013 and returned to work in a limited capacity on 

September 11, 2013. The employing establishment advised that appellant had been released to 

full duty on July 6, 2013, after recovering from a prior right index finger injury. 

In a November 12, 2014 letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies in her claim. 

It advised her to submit a physician’s opinion, supported by a medical explanation, as to how the 

reported work incident caused a diagnosed condition. OWCP did not receive a response. 

In a December 30, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that she failed 

to submit medical evidence establishing a diagnosed condition in connection with the workrelated incident. 

On January 29, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration. In an accompanying 

January 29, 2015 statement, she explained that she was placing mail into a wire case on 

September 10, 2013 and hit her right index finger twice. Appellant reported swelling and a 

popping sensation in her right index finger. She also indicated that a medical specialist advised 

her against further mail casing. 

In a February 11, 2015 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

finding that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a merit review. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

An employee seeking compensation under FECA has the burden of establishing the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of reliable, probative, and substantial 

evidence,4 including that he or she is an “employee” within the meaning of FECA and that he or 

she filed his or her claim within the applicable time limitation.5

 The employee must also 

establish that he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty as alleged and that his or 

her disability for work, if any, was causally related to the employment injury.6 

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. 

There are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment 

 3

 The employing establishment indicated in a separate portion of the form that the claimed injury occurred on 

September 9, 2013. 

4 J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 57 (1968). 

5 R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008). 

6 Id.; Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 
3

incident at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit 

evidence, in the form of medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused a 

personal injury.7 

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the evidence generally required to establish 

causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. Rationalized medical opinion 

evidence is evidence which includes a physician’s 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, must be 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.8

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

There is no dispute that appellant was casing mail. However, the Board finds that 

appellant has not submitted medical evidence to establish that a diagnosed right index finger 

condition was caused or aggravated by the employment incident. 

In a November 12, 2014 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the type of medical evidence 

needed to establish her claim. Appellant failed to provide the requested documentation. The 

record, therefore, does not contain any medical opinion explaining how the employment incident 

caused or contributed to a diagnosed medical condition. As appellant failed to submit any 

medical evidence, she did not meet her burden of proof to establish her claim. 

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. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128(a) of FECA, its 

regulations provide that a claimant must: (1) show that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advance a relevant legal argument not previously 

considered by OWCP; or (3) constitute relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously 

considered by OWCP.9

 Where the request for reconsideration fails to meet at least one of these 

standards, OWCP will deny the application for reconsideration without reopening the case for 

review of the merits.10

 7 T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). 

8 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989). 

9

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see J.M., Docket No. 09-218 (issued July 24, 2009). 

10 Id. at § 10.608(b); see K.H., 59 ECAB 495, 499 (2008). 
4

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

OWCP had denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that there had been no 

medical evidence to establish a medical condition causally related to her federal employment. 

Appellant requested reconsideration on January 29, 2015 and submitted a statement in support of 

her request. On February 11, 2015 OWCP denied her reconsideration request without a merit 

review. 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s reconsideration request. 

Appellant’s January 29, 2015 statement describing how her injury occurred does not advance a 

relevant legal argument not previously considered, or show that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law. The underlying issue in this case, whether the claimed right 

index finger injury is causally related to the September 10, 2013 work incident, is medical in 

nature. Although the January 29, 2015 statement by appellant is new to the record, it is not 

relevant to the underlying issue which is medical in nature and calls for a rationalized medical 

opinion.11 No other evidence accompanied the reconsideration request. 

Consequently, appellant did not meet any of the three criteria for reopening a claim for a 

merit review. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty. The Board further finds that OWCP properly denied her 

request for reconsideration without a merit review of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 11 C.N., Docket No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008) (evidence that does not address the particular issue 

involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 11, 2015 and December 30, 2014 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: October 5, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board