United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Vallejo, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0413

Issued: August 16, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 19, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 23, 2017 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 claim.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a left thumb abscess

causally related to an accepted July 3, 2017 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 5, 2017 appellant, then a 53-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that, while delivering mail on July 3, 2017, insects bit his left thumb, which 

resulted in an abscess. He stopped work on July 6, 2017 and returned to work on July 17, 2017. 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

Appellant claimed continuation of pay (COP). An employing establishment supervisor signed the 

form on September 12, 2017. The supervisor controverted COP for the reason of “finger abscess.”

In Box 23 of the form, titled “Date notice received,” the supervisor struck through the printed date 

“July 3, 2017” and wrote “September 12, 2017” beneath it. The employing establishment 

submitted the Form CA-1 to OWCP on September 12, 2017.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a work status report dated July 5, 2017 from

Dr. Azim Ahmady, an attending Board-certified family practitioner, who held appellant off work 

through July 7, 2017. He also provided a July 7, 2017 work status report from Dr. Phillip L. 

Wagner, an attending physician Board-certified in occupational medicine, who diagnosed a left 

finger abscess sustained on July 3, 2017. Dr. Wagner held appellant off work through 

July 11, 2017. 

By development letter dated September 19, 2017, OWCP notified appellant of the 

deficiency of his claim and afforded him 30 days to submit additional medical and factual 

evidence. Appellant was also provided a list of questions for his physician regarding how the 

alleged employment incident would have caused the claimed left thumb abscess. OWCP 

emphasized that a physician’s detailed, well-rationalized opinion on causal relationship was 

crucial to establish appellant’s claim. 

In response, appellant submitted a note dated October 6, 2017, asserting that he had given 

a statement with his Form CA-1. He did not provide additional medical or factual evidence prior 

to October 23, 2017.

By decision dated October 23, 2017, OWCP denied the claim as causal relationship had 

not been established. It accepted that the July 3, 2017 employment incident occurred at the time,

place, and in the manner alleged. However, OWCP denied the claim as the medical evidence of 

record contained insufficient rationale to establish causal relationship between the accepted 

employment incident and the claimed left thumb abscess. It noted that as appellant’s claim was 

denied, the employing establishment would charge any previously paid COP to his sick or annual 

leave balance or declare it an overpayment.2

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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 or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the 

 

2 On March 8, 2018 OWCP issued a decision in this claim accepting the traumatic injury claim, and a second 

decision also dated March 8, 2018 denying appellant’s claim for COP. However, the Board acquired jurisdiction over 

the claim on December 19, 2017 when appellant filed his notice of appeal with the Board. Therefore, both March 8, 

2018 OWCP decisions are null and void. The Board and OWCP may not have concurrent jurisdiction over the same 

issue in a case. D.S., Docket No. 18-0061 (issued May 29, 2018). See Russell E. Lerman, 43 ECAB 770 (1992); 

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

3 Supra note 1.
3

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

To determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP must determine whether fact of injury has been established. First, an employee has the 

burden of proof to demonstrate the occurrence of an injury at the time, place, and in the manner 

alleged, by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.6 Second, the 

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

establish a causal relationship between the employment incident and the alleged disability and/or 

condition for which compensation is claimed.7 An employee may establish that the employment 

incident occurred as alleged, but fail to show that his or her disability or condition relates to the 

employment incident.8

Causal relationship is a medical question that generally requires rationalized medical

opinion evidence to resolve the issue.9 A physician’s opinion on whether there is a causal 

relationship between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factor(s) must be 

based on a complete factual and medical background.10 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must 

be expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by 

medical rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and 

appellant’s specific employment factor(s).11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a left thumb 

abscess causally related to an accepted July 3, 2017 employment incident.

The determination of whether an employment incident caused an injury is generally 

established by medical evidence.12 Appellant submitted a July 5, 2017 work status report from

Dr. Ahmady, an attending Board-certified family practitioner, who did not provide a diagnosis. 

Dr. Wagner, an attending physician Board-certified in occupational medicine, diagnosed a left 

finger abscess on July 7, 2017. Although he noted July 3, 2017 as the date of injury, he did not 

 

4 Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005); Anthony P. Silva, 55 ECAB 179 (2003). 

5 See Elizabeth H. Kramm (Leonard O. Kramm), 57 ECAB 117 (2005); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 

6 David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); Delphyne L. Glover, 51 ECAB 146 (1999).

7 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997).

8 D.J., Docket No. 17-0364 (issued April 13, 2018); K.B., Docket No. 17-1363 (issued February 14, 2018); Gary J. 

Watling, id.

9 Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

10 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

11 Id.

12 Lois E. Culver (Clair L. Culver), 53 ECAB 412 (2002).
4

describe the accepted employment incident. Dr. Wagner did not provide his medical reasoning as 

to how and why the accepted insect bite would result in the claimed left thumb abscess. Medical 

evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of 

diminished probative value on the issue of causal relationship.13

In order to establish causal relationship, a physician must provide an opinion that the injury 

or condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to federal employment and such 

relationship must be supported with affirmative evidence, explained by medical rationale, and be 

based upon a complete and accurate medical and factual background of the claimant.14 Appellant 

was provided an opportunity to submit evidence to establish how the claimed abscess occurred. 

By development letter dated September 19, 2017, OWCP requested that appellant obtain an 

opinion from his attending physician with medical rationale addressing causal relationship. 

Appellant has not submitted a medical report sufficient to show that the diagnosed left thumb

abscess was causally related to the accepted July 3, 2017 employment incident, and thus did not 

meet his burden of proof.15

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 and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a left thumb

abscess causally related to an accepted July 3, 2017 employment incident.

 

13 See S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009); Conard Hightower, 54 ECAB 796 (2003).

14 See J.W., Docket No. 17-0870 (issued July 12, 2017).

15 K.B., supra note 8.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs dated October 23, 2017 is affirmed.

Issued: August 16, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board