United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, LOGANVILLE POST 

OFFICE, Loganville, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1997

Issued: July 27, 2018

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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 25, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 27, 2017 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction over the merits of this case.3

 

1 A claimant has 180 days from the date of OWCP’s decision to timely file an appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e). In 

this case, the 180-day period for the March 27, 2017 decision expired on Saturday, September 23, 2017. If the last 

day to file an appeal is on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the 180-day period runs until the close of the next 

business day. 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(2). The appeal in this case, received by the Board on Monday, September 25, 

2017, is therefore timely.

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence after OWCP rendered its March 27, 2017 decision. 

The Board’s jurisdiction, however, is limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its 

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); Dennis E. Maddy, 47 ECAB 259 (1995); James C. Campbell, 5 ECAB 35, 36 

n.2 (1952). 
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish that she developed a 

bilateral shoulder condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 1, 2017 appellant, then a 54-year-old rural carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that her arms pulled out of joint while she was loading a cart

while in the performance of duty, causing her to drop items on February 4, 2016. She first 

became aware of her claimed condition and of its relationship to her federal employment on 

February 4, 2016. Appellant notified her supervisor on February 1, 2017. On the reverse side of 

the claim form, her supervisor indicated that appellant’s injury existed prior to 

February 4, 2016.4 Appellant reported that she was unable to lift her arms after that day and that 

a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan revealed rotator cuff arthritis and excessive use in the 

shoulder. She noted that her left shoulder was aggravated from overuse as a result of over 

compensating following a previous work-related right arm injury. 

By development letter dated February 14, 2017, OWCP notified appellant that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to support her claim. It noted that it was unclear as to 

whether she was claiming a traumatic injury or an occupational disease. OWCP advised 

appellant of the medical and factual evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for her 

completion. The questionnaire advised her to describe in detail the employment-related 

activities which she believed contributed to her condition, how often she performed the activities 

described, for how long on each occasion, and all activities and hobbies outside of her federal 

employment. It also requested that she specify whether she was claiming an occupational 

disease or traumatic injury based on the definitions provided. Appellant was afforded 30 days to 

submit the requested evidence. 

In a March 1, 2017 narrative statement, appellant reported that she was claiming both a 

traumatic injury and occupational disease claim for her bilateral shoulder conditions. She noted 

that her conditions stemmed from an April 30, 2014 injury to her right shoulder, which caused 

her to overuse her left arm, shoulder, and neck to compensate for her right shoulder. Appellant

stated that, after she was cleared to return to work, her right shoulder and hand caused her to 

drop items and multiple times she would try to catch these items from falling which would cause 

sudden jerky motions to both shoulders with pain and numbness. She reported that on her last 

days of work at the employing establishment on February 2, 2016, there were bundles and 

parcels which had shifted on her work cart. Appellant tried to grab the items from falling and 

felt like her arms were “pulled off from her shoulders,” causing her to scream. She explained 

that she had previously been diagnosed with thoracic outlet syndrome caused by the April 30, 

2014 injury. Appellant was scheduled to undergo surgery on February 15, 2016, but it was 

cancelled because the paperwork had not been approved. She reported that her condition 

worsened and on February 24, 2016, her physician informed her that she needed a right shoulder 

titanium replacement. Appellant stated that she did not have any shoulder, neck, or nerve

 

4 The record reflects that appellant has prior traumatic injury claims with dates of injury ranging from January 1, 

2012 through April 30, 2014. 
3

problems prior to the April 30, 2014 injury. She noted that her last day of work was on 

February 4, 2016 the day when her shoulders were sharply jerked while she was catching the 

tubs and parcels from falling off the work cart. 

Appellant also submitted a response to OWCP’s questionnaire dated March 1, 2017 and 

described her employment-related activities which she believed caused her condition. She 

reported repetitive movement of sorting mail, overreaching for bundles, heavy lifting, extending 

out arms with weight, and jerking open mailboxes. Appellant reported that for two hours in the 

morning she would sort mail and parcels and pull down mail. She would case mail for an hour 

and spend up to 45 minutes with outgoing mail and parcels. No further evidence was received.

By decision dated March 27, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

evidence of record failed to establish that the “injury or event” occurred as alleged. It noted that 

the facts of the injury suggested a traumatic injury occurring in a single incident or a single work 

shift per her statement “arm pulled out loading cart” on February 4, 2016. However, appellant’s

response to OWCP’s development letter noted a February 2, 2016 date of injury, creating a 

discrepancy regarding whether the injury occurred on February 2 or 4, 2016. As such, OWCP 

reported that it was unable to make a finding of injury occurring as alleged. It advised appellant 

to file a Form CA-1 if she was alleging a traumatic injury claim. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 has the burden of establishing 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 

employment injury.6 These are the essential elements of every compensation claim regardless of 

whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.7

In order to determine whether an employee actually sustained an injury in the 

performance of duty, OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been 

established. Generally, fact of injury consists of two components which must be considered in 

conjunction with one another. The first component to be established is that the employee 

actually experienced the employment incident which is alleged to have occurred.8 The second 

component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and generally can be 

established only by medical evidence. 

 

5 Supra note 2.

6 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1154 (1989).

7 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).

8 Elaine Pendleton, supra note 6.
4

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.9

In this case, appellant filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she 

developed bilateral arm and shoulder conditions. In a March 1, 2017 narrative statement, she

reported that she was claiming both a traumatic injury and occupational disease claim for her 

bilateral shoulder conditions. Appellant noted that her conditions stemmed from an April 30, 

2014 right shoulder employment injury, and thereafter from overusing her left arm, shoulder, and 

neck to compensate for her right shoulder injury. She stated that, after she was cleared to return 

to work, her right shoulder and hand caused her to drop items and multiple times she would try 

to catch these items from falling which would cause sudden jerky motions to both shoulders with 

pain and numbness. Appellant reported that her last day of work at the employing establishment 

was February 2, 2016, when bundles and parcels had shifted on her work cart. She tried to grab 

the items from falling and it felt like her arms were pulled off from her shoulders, causing her to 

scream. Appellant noted that her last day of work was on February 4, 2016 when her shoulders 

were sharply jerked while she was catching the tubs and parcels from falling off the work cart. 

On March 1, 2017 appellant also responded to OWCP’s questionnaire and described the 

employment-related activities which she believed caused her condition and the amount of time 

spent on each activity. She reported repetitive movement of sorting mail, overreaching for 

bundles, heavy lifting, extending out arms with weight, jerking open mailboxes. 

The March 27, 2017 OWCP decision found that appellant failed to establish fact of 

injury. It noted that her allegations suggested a traumatic injury, but there was a discrepancy 

regarding whether the injury occurred on February 2 or 4, 2016. As such, OWCP concluded that 

it was unable to make a finding of injury and advised appellant to file a Form CA-1 if she wished 

to claim a traumatic injury. OWCP generally stated that it was unable to make a finding of an 

injury occurring as alleged. 

The Board finds that the discrepancies found in OWCP’s March 27, 2017 decision with 

regard to the purported date of injury is more in keeping with a traumatic injury, which is a 

condition of the body caused by a single event or incident or series of events or incidents 

occurring within a single workday or work shift,

10 versus an occupational disease or illness 

produced by the work environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.11 

Furthermore, although OWCP noted in its decision that the factual evidence submitted by 

appellant suggested a traumatic injury, it also advised appellant to complete a Form CA-1 claim 

for a traumatic injury. As such, OWCP has intermingled a traumatic injury claim with an 

occupational disease claim and, thus, did not discharge its burden to make findings as to whether 

appellant sustained an occupational disease or a traumatic injury in the performance of duty.

12

 

 

9 G.S., Docket No. 16-0908 (issued October 26, 2017).

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee).

11 Id. at § 10.5(q).

12 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.126.
5

The Board finds, therefore, that the basis for the denial of appellant’s claim remains unclear and 

is not in keeping with 20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

13

 As fact of injury is a material point in a 

compensation case and, because of its materiality, OWCP must clearly state whether fact of 

injury is accepted and, if fact of injury is not accepted, OWCP must clearly specify the basis for 

denial.14

Therefore, the case shall be remanded to OWCP for any necessary further development, 

to be followed by a de novo decision which shall include findings of fact and a clear and precise 

basis for denial of appellant’s claim as required by statute,

15 regulation,16 OWCP’s procedures,17

and prior Board precedent18 regarding whether appellant sustained an occupational disease or a 

traumatic injury in the performance of duty.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision. 

 

13 A final decision of OWCP must contain findings of fact and a statement of reasons.

14 Elaine Pendleton, supra note 6.

15 See 5 U.S.C. § 8124(a), which provides: “OWCP shall determine and make a finding of fact and make an 

award for or against payment of compensation.”

16 20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

17 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowance, Chapter 2.1400.5(e) (February 2013), 

which provides in pertinent part: “The [claims examiner’s] evaluation of the evidence should be clear and detailed 

so that the reader understands the reason for the disallowance of the benefit and the evidence necessary to overcome 

the defect of the claim.”

18 See e.g., Elaine Pendleton, supra note 6; see also A.C., Docket No. 17-1927 (issued April 12, 2018); James D. 

Boller, Jr., 12 ECAB 45, 46 (1960). 
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 27, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside. The case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. 

Issued: July 27, 2018

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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