United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Kokomo, IN, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0596 

Issued: June 15, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 23, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 21, 2016 merit 

decision and a December 27, 2016 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs1

 (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employee’s Compensation Act2 (FECA) and 20 

C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case. 

ISSUES 

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

causally related to the accepted August 3, 2016 employment incident; and (2) whether OWCP 

properly denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing representative. 

On appeal, appellant contends that her medical documentation establishes that her 

injuries occurred while she was performing her employment duties. 

 1

 While appellant initially timely requested oral argument before the Board, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b), 

appellant withdrew her request on February 21, 2017. 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 3, 2016 appellant, then a 44-year-old carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she injured her left knee when it gave out while she was 

walking down steps. She stopped work on August 3, 2016. 

With her claim, appellant submitted an August 10, 2016 attending physician’s report 

(Form CA-20) wherein Dr. Courtney A. Holland, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, indicated 

that she treated appellant on July 14, and August 10, and 19, 2016. Dr. Holland diagnosed knee 

pain/swelling for four to six weeks, exacerbated by impact activities (prolonged standing/stairs). 

She noted that appellant’s knee gave out, and that she was using a knee brace. Dr. Holland 

found moderate effusion and mild arthritis, and diagnosed internal derangement of the knee. She 

further opined that appellant was able to return to light work, with walking as tolerated. 

On September 7, 2016 appellant submitted Dr. Holland’s progress reports. In a July 14, 

2016 progress report, Dr. Holland diagnosed left knee effusion, knee internal derangement, and 

left knee pain. She noted that appellant had a four- to six-week history of left knee pain with an 

insidious onset. Dr. Holland indicated that appellant’s pain was over her medial knee and was 

exacerbated with impact activities, prolonged standing, and stairs. She noted that appellant was 

employed as a postal worker, which required 8 to 12 hours of standing and up to 12 miles of 

walking per day. Dr. Holland noted frequent episodes of appellant’s knee buckling and giving 

out on her. She recommended conservative treatment. Dr. Holland indicated that x-rays were 

taken of appellant’s left knee which showed moderate effusion, decreased joint space within the 

medial compartment, secondary changes of medial femoral condyle and medial plateau to 

include squaring and sclerosis, and mild arthritis in the patellofemoral compartment. She noted 

that she had given appellant an injection on that date and that appellant noted immediate relief. 

In an August 10, 2016 progress note, Dr. Holland repeated appellant’s history and 

diagnoses. She also noted that on the day of injury appellant was walking when her knee gave 

out and she fell. In an August 25, 2016 report, Dr. Holland noted that appellant had a magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan on that date. She diagnosed chondromalacia of medial femoral 

condyle, knee pain, and medial meniscus tear. Dr. Holland noted that appellant had failed 

conservative treatment and recommended left knee arthroscopy with meniscal debridement or 

repair, chondroplasty, and evaluation for possible chondral restoration procedure. 

In a September 16, 2016 letter to appellant, OWCP indicated that when it first received 

appellant’s claim, it appeared to be a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time from 

work and a limited amount of medical expense, so it was administratively approved without a 

full merit review. However, as appellant had not returned to work in a full-time capacity, OWCP 

opened the claim for consideration of the merits. OWCP noted that it had reviewed the claim 

and determined that the evidence of record was insufficient to support her claim. It afforded 

appellant 30 days to submit the necessary medical evidence. 

 In a September 23, 2016 report, Dr. Holland noted that appellant was initially injured 

after a fall that occurred in May 2016 while performing her employment duties. She noted that 

the injury was reported to her supervisor, but a formal incident report was never filed. Appellant 

advised her that a second injury occurred on August 3, 2016, which also resulted from a fall 
3

while working. She summarized her previously submitted medical reports. Dr. Holland noted 

that she recommended a left knee arthroscopy with medial debridement and chondroplasty, and 

asked for authorization for that procedure. 

 By decision dated October 21, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because she had 

not established a causal relationship between the accepted employment incident and the accepted 

diagnosis. 

 Appellant submitted a request for a review of the written record by an OWCP hearing 

representative on an appeal request form dated November 21, 2016. However, the postmark for 

mailing this document was November 28, 2016. 

 By decision dated December 27, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s request for a review of 

the written record by an OWCP hearing representative as untimely filed. It also reviewed 

appellant’s request at its discretion, and denied the request as it determined that the issue in the 

case could be equally well addressed by requesting reconsideration and submitting new 

evidence. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period of FECA, that an injury was caused 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.3

 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.4

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

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

First, the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually 

experienced the employment incident at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.5

 Second, the 

employee must submit sufficient evidence, generally only in the form of medical evidence, to 

establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.6

The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background of the employee, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be 

supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed 

 3 Joe D. Cameron, 42 ECAB 153 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

4 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

5 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

6 Id. 
4

condition and the specific employment factors identified by the employee.7 The weight of the 

medical evidence is determined by its reliability, its probative value, its convincing quality, the 

care of analysis manifested, and the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s 

opinion.8

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

Appellant filed a traumatic injury claim alleging injuries to her left knee when, on 

August 3, 2016, it gave out on her while she was walking down steps during the performance of 

her federal duties. OWCP denied her claim because she had not established a causal relationship 

between the accepted employment incident and the accepted diagnosis. 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof in that she did not submit 

medical evidence establishing that her diagnosed left knee conditions were causally related to her 

August 3, 2016 employment incident. 

In support of her claim appellant submitted multiple reports by Dr. Holland. Dr. Holland 

diagnosed chondromalacia of the medial femoral condyle and medial meniscus tear, and 

recommended a left knee arthroscopy with medial meniscal debridement and chondroplasty. 

However, she did not provide a rationalized medical opinion establishing how these diagnosed 

conditions were causally related to appellant’s fall during her employment as a letter carrier on 

August 3, 2016. The Board has held that a medical report is of limited probative value on the 

issue of causal relationship if it contains a conclusion regarding causal relationship which is 

unsupported by medical rationale.9

Dr. Holland first discussed appellant’s symptoms in her left knee in a July 14, 2016 

progress report, which was prior to the date of the August 3, 2016 alleged traumatic injury. In 

her August 10, 2016 report, she indicated that appellant had fallen on that date, not one week 

earlier. Dr. Holland first noted appellant’s August 3, 2016 fall in her September 23, 2016 report. 

However, she failed to provide medical rationale as to why appellant’s knee giving out on 

August 3, 2016 caused the left knee diagnoses for which she required surgery. In fact, 

Dr. Holland noted that appellant had a previous employment-related fall in May 2016. A mere 

conclusion without the necessary rationale explaining how and why the physician believes that 

the accepted incident resulted in a diagnosed condition is not sufficient to meet appellant’s 

burden of proof.10 Neither the fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of 

employment nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by an 

employment incident is sufficient to establish causal relationship.11 The Board finds that 

appellant did not meet her burden of proof. 

 7 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, supra note 4. 

8 James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991). 

9 L.H., Docket No. 16-194 (issued October 27, 2016). 

10 G.M., Docket No. 14-2057 (issued May 12, 2015). 

11 T.E., Docket No. 16-1090 (issued February 24, 2017). 
5

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 10.607.12 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

Section 8124(b)(1) of FECA provides that a claimant for compensation not satisfied with 

a decision of the Secretary is entitled, on request made within 30 days after the date of the 

issuance of the decision, to a hearing on her claim before a representative of the Secretary.13 

Sections 10.617 and 10.618 of the federal regulations implementing this section of FECA 

provide that a claimant shall be afforded a choice of an oral hearing or a review of the written 

record by a representative of the Secretary.14 A claimant is entitled to a hearing or review of the 

written record as a matter of right only if the request is filed within the requisite 30 days as 

determined by postmark or other carriers’ date marking and before the claimant has requested 

reconsideration.15 Although there is no right to a review of the written record or an oral hearing 

if not requested within the 30-day time period, OWCP may within its discretionary powers grant 

or deny a hearing when the request is untimely or made after reconsideration under section 

8128(a).16

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

Appellant’s request for oral hearing was dated November 21, 2016. However, the 

postmark indicates that the request was mailed on November 28, 2016. The time limitation to 

request an oral hearing before OWCP expired on November 21, 2016 since November 20, 2016 

fell on a Sunday.17 However, the date of the postmark, November 28, 2016, is the date 

considered as the date of filing.18 Accordingly, appellant’s request is found to have been made 

more than 30 days after the issuance of OWCP’s most recent decision on October 21, 2016. 

 12 The Board notes that appellant submitted a reconsideration request on December 27, 2016. On January 23, 

2017 appellant requested an appeal before this Board. By letter dated February 28, 2017, OWCP properly informed 

appellant that no action would take place on her reconsideration request as the Board was considering appellant’s 

claim. It and the Board may not simultaneously have jurisdiction over the same issue. As the Board had jurisdiction 

over the traumatic injury claim, OWCP could not issue decision regarding the same issue on appeal before the 

Board. See Terry L. Smith, 51 ECAB 182 (1999); Arlonia B. Taylor, 44 ECAB 591 (1993); Russell E. Lerman, 43 

ECAB 770 (1992); Douglas E. Billings, 41 ECAB 880 (1990), 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(3).

13 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1). 

14 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.626, 10.617. 

15 Eddie Franklin, 51 ECAB 223 (1999); Delmont L. Thompson, 51 ECAB 155 (1999). 

16 See M.W., Docket No. 12-1267 (issued November 2, 2012); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --

Claims, Hearings and Review of the Written Record, Chapter 2.1601.2(a) (October 2011). 

17 See T.T., Docket No. 15-1397 (issued December 3, 2015). 

18 Supra note 15. 
6

Therefore, OWCP properly found that appellant was not entitled to an oral hearing as a matter of 

right.19

OWCP then properly exercised its discretion by stating that it had considered the matter 

and had denied appellant’s request for a hearing because the issue could be addressed through a 

request for reconsideration.20 The Board has held that the only limitation on OWCP’s authority 

is reasonableness and an abuse of discretion is generally shown through proof of manifest error, 

clearly unreasonable exercise of judgment, or actions taken which are contrary to both logic and 

probable deduction from established facts.21 In this case, the evidence of record does not 

indicate that OWCP abused its discretion in its denial of appellant’s request for an oral hearing. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied her request.22

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish an injury 

causally related to the accepted August 3, 2016 employment incident. The Board further finds 

that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative. 

 19 C.C., Docket No. 16-1581 (issued February 17, 2017). 

20 M.H., Docket No. 15-0774 (issued June 19, 2015). 

21 Daniel J. Perea, 42 ECAB 214, 221 (1990). 

22 R.P., Docket No. 16-0554 (issued May 17, 2016). 
7

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated December 27 and October 21, 2016 are affirmed. 

Issued: June 15, 2017 

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