United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.G., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, TWENTY SECOND 

STREET STATION, Chicago, IL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1454 

Issued: November 22, 2016 

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 July 6, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 26, 2016 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 has met her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty. 

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

she believes caused her claimed bilateral shoulder injury. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted new evidence with her appeal. The Board, however, is precluded from 

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

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 15, 2016 appellant, then a 52-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) under File No. xxxxxx518 alleging that she first became aware of her 

“other occupational illnesses” and their relation to her federal employment on April 29, 2015.3

In an April 4, 2016 letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of her claim and 

requested that she submit factual and medical evidence, including a detailed description of the 

employment-related activities that she believed contributed to her claimed medical condition, 

how often she performed the described activities, and a physician’s opinion explaining how her 

work-related exposure contributed to her medical condition. It afforded appellant 30 days to 

provide the requested evidence. 

In a June 9, 2015 right knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report, 

Dr. Michael A. Wilczynski, a radiologist, provided an impression of mild degenerative changes 

in the right knee joint. 

By decision dated May 26, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. 

It found that the factual element of the claim was not established. It noted that appellant had 

failed to respond to its April 4, 2016 development letter requesting additional information about 

her employment-related activities. OWCP also found that the medical evidence was insufficient 

to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related to a work injury or event. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation, that an injury was sustained while 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.4 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.5

Whether an employee actually sustained an injury in the performance of duty begins with 

an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established.6

 To establish that an injury was 

sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational disease claim, a claimant must submit 

the following: (1) a factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or 

 3

 On her Form CA-2, appellant related that her claim under File No. xxxxxx518 was not filed within 30 days of 

her injury because she was advised by a coordinator of a medical access group to wait until she heard from the U.S. 

Department of Labor concerning her first claim under File No. xxxxxx202. File No. xxxxxx202 is not before the 

Board on the present appeal. 

4 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

5 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

6 S.P., id. 
3

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 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to establish an injury in the performance of 

duty. Appellant’s claim form generally stated that she sustained “other occupational illnesses” 

caused or aggravated by her employment. She did not present a clear factual statement 

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

occurrence of her disease or condition. Appellant has not explained how work duties caused or 

aggravated her claimed condition. 

On April 4, 2016 OWCP informed appellant that the evidence received to date was 

insufficient to establish that she experienced any employment factors that were alleged to have 

caused an injury. Appellant was asked to provide a detailed description of the employmentrelated activities she believed contributed to her condition and how often she performed the 

described activities. OWCP afforded her 30 days to submit this additional evidence. Appellant 

did not provide any statement responding to OWCP’s inquiry. The only medical evidence of 

record submitted was Dr. Wilczynski’s June 9, 2015 MRI scan report, which does not describe 

appellant’s work duties. 

For reasons stated, the Board finds that appellant has not sufficiently identified 

employment activities alleged to have caused or contributed to her claimed conditions to meet 

her burden of proof.8

 

As appellant has not established the factual component of her claim, the Board will not 

address the medical evidence with respect to causal relationship.9

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

she believed caused her claimed bilateral shoulder injury. However, she did not provide this 

information to OWCP prior to the issuance of its May 26, 2016 final decision and, thus, the 

Board is precluded from reviewing it.10 

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. 

 7 R.R., Docket No. 08-2010 (issued April 3, 2009); Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005). 

8 R.Z., Docket No. 13-1911 (issued September 15, 2014). 

9 D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006). 

10 See supra note 2. 
4

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an injury in 

the performance of duty. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 26, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: November 22, 2016 

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