United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.O., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Minneapolis, MN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0666

Issued: August 24, 2018

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, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 12, 2018 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 met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained an 

injury causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The record provided the Board includes evidence received after OWCP issued its January 12, 2018 decision. The 

Board’s jurisdiction is limited to the evidence that was in the case record at the time of OWCP’s final decision. 

Therefore, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1).
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 4, 2017 appellant, a 46-year-old sales and services associate, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he injured his left shoulder while at work 

due to repetitive lifting and throwing boxes. He described the nature of the condition as pain in 

his shoulder. Appellant identified November 1, 2016 as the date he first became aware of his 

condition, as well as the date he first realized it was caused or aggravated by his federal 

employment. 

In a November 27, 2017 development letter, OWCP acknowledged receipt of appellant’s 

claim, but noted that it had not received any other documentation with his claim form. It advised 

him of the need for medical evidence in support of his claim. OWCP also provided appellant a 

factual questionnaire to complete and return. It afforded him 30 days to submit the requested 

medical evidence and factual information. 

In a letter dated January 8, 2018, an employing establishment representative controverted 

appellant’s occupational disease claim noting that no medical diagnosis had been provided to date 

and a medical connection between injury and condition had not been established. 

On January 11, 2018 OWCP received the signature page from its November 27, 2017 

factual questionnaire, which appellant signed and dated December 1, 2017. However, appellant 

did not provide a narrative response to the questions OWCP posed regarding his claimed 

occupational exposure. OWCP did not receive any additional factual information or medical 

evidence within the allotted timeframe.

By decision dated January 12, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. 

Although it found that the evidence supported that the injury and/or events occurred as described

it denied appellant’s claim because the medical component of fact of injury had not been met. 

OWCP specifically found that appellant did not submit any medical evidence containing a 

diagnosis in connection with the injury and/or events. It further indicated that it had not received 

any medical evidence in appellant’s case. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

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

evidence4including that he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty, and that any 

specific condition or disability for work for which he or she claims compensation is causally 

related to that employment injury.5 

 

3 See supra note 1.

4

J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 58 (1968).

5 M.M., Docket No. 08-1510 (issued November 25, 2010); G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 

1143, 1145 (1989).
3

OWCP regulations define an occupational illness as a condition produced by the work 

environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.6 To establish an occupational 

disease claim, appellant’s burden requires submission of the following: (1) a factual statement 

identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence 

of the disease or condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the 

disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing 

that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the 

employee.7

ANALYSIS

Appellant alleged that he developed left shoulder pain as a result of “repetitive lifting and 

throwing boxes.” OWCP accepted that the injury and/or events occurred as described, but denied 

the claim because appellant failed to establish the medical component of fact of injury. Appellant

did not submit any medical evidence in support of his occupational disease claim. The Board finds 

that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish his claim.

To establish the medical component of fact of injury, medical evidence is required that 

establishes the presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is 

claimed.8 Appellant has not submitted any medical evidence in support of his occupational disease 

claim. There is no medical evidence in the record. Consequently, appellant failed to meet his 

burden of proof to establish a medical diagnosis in connection with his accepted occupational 

exposure.

9

 As appellant has not submitted medical evidence containing a diagnosis of a left 

shoulder condition, he has not establish the medical component of fact of injury.

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. 

§§ 10.606 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained 

an injury causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

 

6 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee).

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

8 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1999).

9 See J.K., Docket No. 16-1850 (issued January 9, 2017).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 12, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 24, 2018

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