United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Perrysburg, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0548

Issued: December 16, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 2, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 20, 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that he filed a timely 

claim for compensation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8122(a). 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 17, 2018 appellant, then a 62-year-old retired mail carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome due to 

factors of his federal employment including casing mail. He noted that his hands went numb in 

2003 and that they froze up completely in June and July 2017. Appellant noted that he underwent 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

right carpal tunnel surgery in June 2017, and left carpal tunnel surgery in July 2017. He indicated 

that he first became aware of his condition and realized that it resulted from his employment on 

October 3, 2003. On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment indicated 

that appellant had been approved for disability retirement on October 24, 2011, and his last day in 

pay status was November 10, 2011.

2

In an April 20, 2018 letter, D.Z., a human resource specialist for the employing 

establishment, informed OWCP that appellant had retired and that he had a previously closed CA-2 

claim dated October 2, 2003.3 He also related that appellant worked full-time, limited duty from 

October 2 to November 25, 2003 and was released to full duty on March 4, 2004. 

In a development letter dated April 23, 2018, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish his claim. It advised him of the type of medical and factual 

evidence necessary to support his claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP 

afforded appellant 30 days to submit the requested information. 

On April 30, 2018 OWCP received appellant’s completed questionnaire dated 

April 28, 2018. Appellant indicated that the employment-related activities which he believe 

contributed to his condition was casing and delivering mail in a “heavy volume” post office for 27 

years. He recounted that in 2003 he started to notice that his fingers went numb. Appellant related 

that in January 2017 his fingers froze completely and he underwent surgery. He noted that he had 

retired due to disability for his knees on October 24, 2011. In response to the question regarding 

why he did not file his claim until April 20, 2018, he reported that appellant had bad knees, which 

required five prior surgeries.

By decision dated June 13, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that it was 

untimely filed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8122. It noted that the evidence of record did not establish 

that he filed his claim within three years of the date of injury of October 3, 2003 or that his 

immediate supervisor had actual knowledge of the claim within 30 days of the date of injury. 

On June 18, 2018 appellant requested a telephonic hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, which was held on November 14, 2018. He related that 

he had not worked since October 24, 2011 due to unrelated lower extremity problems. Appellant

also testified that in 2003 he had not informed his supervisor or anyone in management about his 

hands and fingers going numb because they would have dismissed him or put him on disability. 

Appellant submitted medical evidence, including an electromyography and nerve 

conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) study, operative reports, and progress notes dated May 18 to 

October 6, 2017 by Dr. Dennis R. Assenmacher, an orthopedic surgeon, regarding his medical 

treatment for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. 

 

2 The employing establishment further noted that appellant’s age-related regular retirement was effective 

July 24, 2017.

3 Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx754, appellant has an accepted occupational disease claim for a right knee 

condition, which arose on or about October 2, 2003. Additionally, under OWCP File No. xxxxxx400, appellant has 

an accepted traumatic injury claim for a left knee condition, which arose on September 9, 2003. 
3

By decision dated December 20, 2018, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

June 13, 2018 denial decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4has 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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation of FECA,5that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and 

that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to 

the employment injury.6 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim, 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.7

The issue of whether a claim was timely filed is a preliminary jurisdictional issue that 

precedes any determination on the merits of the claim.8 In cases of injury on or after September 7, 

1974, section 8122(a) of FECA provides that an original claim for compensation, disability, or 

death, must be filed within three years after the injury or death.9

In a case of occupational disease, the time for filing a claim begins to run when the 

employee first becomes aware, or reasonably should have been aware, of a possible relationship 

between his or her condition and federal employment. Such awareness is competent to start the 

limitation period even though the employee does not know the precise nature of the impairment or 

whether the ultimate result of such affect would be temporary or permanent.10 Where the employee 

continues in the same employment after he or she reasonably should have been aware that he or 

she has a condition which has been adversely affected by factors of federal employment, the time 

limitation begins to run on the date of the last exposure to the implicated factors.11

Section 8122(b) provides that, in latent disability cases, the time limitation does not begin 

to run until the claimant is aware, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been 

 

4 Supra note 1.

5 S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989). 

6

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

7 K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

8 A.S., Docket No. 18-1094 (issued February 7, 2019); C.S., Docket No. 18-0009 (issued March 22, 2018); David R. 

Morey, 55 ECAB 642 (2004); Charles W. Bishop, 6 ECAB 571 (1954).

9 5 U.S.C. § 8122(a); see S.F., Docket No. 19-0283 (issued July 15, 2019); W.L., 59 ECAB 362 (2008).

10 R.T., Docket No. 18-1590 (issued February 15, 2019).

11 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Time, Chapter 2.801.6 (March 1993); see also G.M., Docket 

No. 18-0768 (issued October 4, 2018).
4

aware, of the causal relationship between the employment and the compensable disability.12 The 

Board has emphasized that an employee need only be aware of a possible relationship between his 

or her condition and his or her employment to commence the running of the applicable statute of 

limitations,13 and that, if an employee continues to be exposed to injurious working conditions 

after such awareness, the time limitation begins to run on the last date of this exposure.14

Even if a claim is not filed within the three-year period of limitation, it would still be 

regarded as timely under section 8122(a)(1) if the immediate supervisor had actual knowledge of 

his or her alleged employment-related injury within 30 days or written notice of the injury was 

provided within 30 days pursuant to section 8119.15 The knowledge must be such as to put the 

immediate superior reasonably on notice of an on-the-job injury or death.16

It is the employee’s burden of proof to establish that a claim is timely filed.17

ANALYSIS

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

timely claim for compensation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8122(a). 

On his Form CA-2, appellant indicated that he first became aware of his condition and 

realized that it resulted from his employment on October 3, 2003. The employing establishment 

also noted that appellant was approved for disability retirement in 2011 and appellant testified that 

he retired due to disability on October 24, 2011 because of knee conditions. Appellant filed his 

Form CA-2 on April 17, 2018. Because he did not file his occupational disease claim until April

17, 2018, a date which is more than three years after his last occupational exposure in 2011, he 

filed his claim outside the three-year time limitation.18 

The Board also finds that there is no evidence of record that appellant’s immediate 

supervisor had actual knowledge, within 30 days of the alleged injury, that continued factors of 

his federal employment had caused an occupational injury, or that appellant provided written 

notice of injury within 30 days of the injury.

19

 To the contrary, appellant testified during his 

telephonic hearing that he intentionally did not inform management of his carpal tunnel symptoms 

 

12 5 U.S.C. § 8122(b).

13 S.F., Docket No. 19-0283 (issued July 15, 2019); J.M., Docket No. 10-1965 (issued May 16, 2011); Larry E. 

Young, 52 ECAB 264 (2001).

14 D.R., Docket No. 18-1754 (issued April 4, 2019); Mitchel Murray, 53 ECAB 601 (2002); Garyleane A. Williams, 

44 ECAB 441 (1993).

15 5 U.S.C. §§ 8122(a)(1), 8122(a)(2); see also Larry E. Young, supra note 13.

16 R.H., Docket No. 17-0251 (issued November 28, 2018); B.H., Docket No. 15-0970 (issued August 17, 2015).

17 A.S., supra note 8.

18 D.R., supra note 14.

19 S.F., supra note 13.
5

in 2003 because he feared he would be dismissed from his job or placed on disability. Appellant, 

therefore, has not established that this occupational disease claim was timely filed.

On appeal appellant asserted that he did not inform the postmaster in 2003 of his injury 

because he did not want to be removed for not being able to perform his duties. As explained 

above, he has not established that he timely filed his occupational disease claim. The Board thus 

finds that he has not established that he timely filed a claim for compensation.20

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 has not met his burden of proof to establish that he filed a 

timely claim for compensation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8122(a). 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 20, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 16, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

20 See L.G., Docket No. 16-0535 (issued February 6, 2017).