United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.P., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, San Diego, CA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0952 

Issued: July 23, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 19, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 19, 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 met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained 

bilateral knee injuries on December 19, 2014 while in the performance of duty. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that, following issuance of OWCP’s February 19, 2015 decision, OWCP received new 

evidence. The Board lacks jurisdiction to review evidence which was not before OWCP at the time it issued its final 

decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1); D.B., Docket No. 12-1653 (issued March 26, 2013). 
2

On appeal, appellant describes her symptoms, medical treatment, and work duties that 

she believed caused her claimed injury in response to OWCP’s request for additional 

information. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 7, 2015 appellant, then a 57-year-old mail handler equipment operator, filed a 

traumatic injury claim alleging that on December 19, 2014 she strained both knees at work. She 

claimed that driving a tow vehicle put pressure on her knees. 

In a January 8, 2015 letter, the employing establishment controverted the claim, 

contending that the claim likely appeared to be an occupational disease claim based on 

appellant’s description of injury. It noted that no medical evidence was submitted with the 

claim. 

By letter dated January 14, 2015, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies in her 

claim and requested that she submit factual and medical evidence. Appellant was afforded 30 

days to submit the requested evidence. OWCP also requested that the employing establishment 

submit medical evidence if she was treated at its medical facility. 

In medical reports dated January 8, 2015, Dr. Cynthia A. Kline-Purviance, an attending 

physician Board-certified in emergency medicine, obtained a history that on December 19, 2014 

appellant was working as a mail handler and, after stepping on pedals while using a tow vehicle, 

she developed a limp. She was unable to continue to perform overtime work using the tow 

vehicle, but performed work in another area. On her way home, appellant had nerve pain from 

the back of her calf to her thigh. The pressure point around her knees was painful. Dr. KlinePurviance noted that appellant complained of left leg pain from repeatedly pushing on pedals of 

the tow vehicle at work “over course of some days.” She provided a history of her medical 

treatment, family, and social background. Dr. Kline-Purviance reported findings on examination 

and diagnosed left thigh sprain, left knee and leg sprain and strain, and cumulative trauma from 

repetitive motion. She advised that her examination findings and diagnoses were consistent with 

the injury reported by appellant. Dr. Kline-Purviance concluded that the reported injury more 

likely than not caused the current symptoms and findings. In reports dated January 13 and 21, 

and February 4, 2015, she reiterated that her diagnoses of left thigh sprain, left knee and leg 

sprain and strain, and cumulative trauma from repetitive motion. Dr. Kline-Purviance diagnosed 

bilateral knee degenerative joint disease. She released appellant to return to light-duty work with 

restrictions on each examination day. 

Reports dated January 13 to 21, 2015 from appellant’s physical therapist, Marsha FunkMyers, addressed the treatment of her left knee sprain and strain. 

An unsigned and undated duty status report noted appellant’s usual physical work 

requirements. 

In a February 19, 2015 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that she failed to submit any factual evidence to establish that the December 19, 2014 
3

incident occurred as alleged. It noted that she had not responded to the request for additional 

factual information. 

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 

evidence4

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

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

that employment injury.5

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.6

 

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

submit sufficient evidence to establish that she actually experienced the employment incident at 

the time, place, and in the manner alleged.7

 

The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and 

generally can be established only by medical evidence.8 The evidence required to establish 

causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence, based upon complete factual and 

medical background, showing a causal relationship between the claimed condition and the 

identified factors.9 The belief of the claimant that a condition was caused or aggravated by the 

employment is insufficient to establish a causal relationship.10

ANALYSIS 

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

sustained bilateral knee injuries on December 19, 2014 while in the performance of duty. 

Appellant did not submit a sufficiently detailed description of the employment incident or 

respond to the questions sent to her by OWCP. She alleged that she strained both knees as a 

result of stepping on pedals while driving a tow vehicle on December 19, 2014. By letter dated 

January 14, 2015, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of her claim and the need to 

 3

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

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

5 G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

6 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005). 

7 Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006); Edward C. Lawrence, 19 ECAB 442 (1968). 

8 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); see 5 U.S.C. § 8101(5) (injury defined); 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.5(ee), 10.5(q) 

(traumatic injury and occupational disease defined, respectively). 

9 Lourdes Harris, 45 ECAB 545 (1994); see Walter D. Morehead, 31 ECAB 188 (1979). 

10 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383, 389 (1994). 
4

submit additional information regarding the alleged incident and medical evidence in support of 

her claim. Appellant did not timely submit the requested factual evidence. The need for factual 

evidence is especially important since it is unclear whether her claim should be treated as a 

traumatic or occupational disease claim, as noted by OWCP. In reports dated January 8, 2015, 

Dr. Kline-Purviance provided a contradictory history of injury as she initially reported that on 

December 19, 2014 appellant developed a limp after stepping on pedals while using a tow 

vehicle and subsequently reported her claim that she had left leg pain from repeatedly pushing on 

pedals of a tow vehicle “over course of some days.” 

A traumatic injury refers to injury caused by a specific event or incident or series of 

incidents occurring within a single workday or work shift whereas an occupational disease refers 

to an injury produced by employment factors which occur or are present over a period longer 

than a single workday or work shift.11 The Board finds that appellant has not established that the 

December 19, 2014 incident occurred at work, as alleged.12 As such, it is not necessary to 

address the medical evidence.13

On appeal, appellant described her symptoms, medical treatment, and work duties that 

she believed caused her claimed injury, as a response to OWCP’s earlier request for additional 

information. However, as the Board’s review is limited to evidence in the case record at the time 

OWCP made its decision over which the Board has jurisdiction, the Board cannot review 

evidence submitted for the first time on appeal.14

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 failed to meet her burden of proof to establish bilateral 

knee injuries on December 19, 2014 while in the performance of duty. 

 11 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee), (q); B.B., Docket No. 13-256 (issued August 13, 2013). 

12 T.M., Docket No. 13-1997 (issued February 11, 2014). 

13 Alvin V. Gadd, supra note 6. 

14 See supra note 2. 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 19, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 23, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board