United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Provo, UT, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0162

Issued: July 3, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 30, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 2, 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 to 

consider the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a right lower 

extremity injury causally related to the accepted April 24, 2018 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 30, 2018 appellant, then a 47-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that at 3:00 p.m. on April 24, 2018, she carried a heavy package on a hand 

cart up two flights of stairs and sustained a right leg strain while in the performance of duty. In a 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

supporting statement, she noted that the package weighed 50 to 70 pounds, was considered 

oversized, but had not been labeled as heavy or requiring a team lift. Appellant initially 

experienced a strained feeling in her right leg, with the onset of pain on April 25, 2018, and

increasing symptoms through April 28, 2018. She stopped work on April 30, 2018 and accepted 

a full-time modified-duty assignment.

In reports dated April 30, 2018, Dr. Sean Biggs, an attending Board-certified family 

practitioner, noted appellant’s history of right knee surgery in approximately 2010 and the

April 24, 2018 employment incident. He obtained x-rays of the right lower extremity which 

demonstrated no fracture, dislocation, or other radiographic findings to suggest an etiology for 

right leg pain. Dr. Biggs opined that appellant had not sustained a specific injury, but that she had

experienced right leg pain after she changed how she carried her mail satchel and had carried more 

heavy items. He diagnosed right leg pain related to work activities. In a state compensation form 

of even date and an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated May 10, 2018, Dr. Biggs

responded “yes” to the question which asked if the diagnosed condition was caused or aggravated 

by an employment activity. He reiterated these opinions and noted work restrictions in reports 

through May 14, 2018.

In a report dated May 31, 2018, Dr. Biggs noted that a 10-day work absence and physical 

therapy had resolved appellant’s right leg pain.2 He released appellant from care effective 

June 11, 2018.

In a development letter dated June 19, 2018, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish her traumatic injury claim. It advised her of the type of

factual and medical evidence required to establish her claim. OWCP also emphasized that pain 

was not a valid diagnosis, but rather a symptom. It afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

In response, appellant submitted her July 13, 2018 statement. She recalled that, on 

April 24, 2018, she had delivered an oversized, heavy package and had used a hand truck to move 

the package to the stairs. Appellant also provided a report dated June 11, 2018 by Dr. Biggs in 

which he opined that appellant’s condition had returned to baseline and released her from care.

By decision dated August 2, 2018, OWCP accepted that the April 24, 2018 employment 

incident had occurred as alleged. It denied the claim, however, because the evidence of record 

failed to establish a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted April 24, 2018 employment 

again explaining that pain is a symptom and not a diagnosis of a medical condition. OWCP found 

that appellant had not satisfied the medical component of fact of injury and, therefore, had not met

the requirements for establishing an injury as defined by FECA.

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 timely filed within the applicable 

 

2 Appellant participated in physical therapy treatments commencing May 9, 2018.
3

time limitation period of FECA,

3

that 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.4 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.5 

In order to determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. 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.6 The second component is whether the employment incident 

caused a personal injury and generally can be established only by medical evidence.7 

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish causal 

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.8 The opinion of the physician must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable medical 

certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors identified by the employee.9 

Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment, 

nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or 

incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a right lower 

extremity injury causally related the accepted April 24, 2018 employment incident.

In his reports from April 30 and May 10, 2018, Dr. Biggs diagnosed right leg pain. In its 

June 19, 2018 development letter, OWCP properly advised appellant that pain is a symptom, not 

 

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

153 (1989).

4

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

ECAB 312 (1988). 

5 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).

6 R.E., Docket No. 17-0547 (issued November 13, 2018); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); Delphyne L. Glover, 

51 ECAB 146 (1999). 

7 A.F., Docket No. 17-1374 (issued March 19, 2019); T.H., Docket No. 18-1736 (issued March 13, 2019); R.E., 

supra note 5.

8 T.H., id.; G.N., Docket No. 18-0403 (issued September 13, 2018); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 

140 (2000).

9 K.V., Docket No. 18-0723 (issued November 9, 2018); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 

45 ECAB 365 (1994).

10 Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997).
4

a valid medical diagnosis.11 It also afforded appellant an opportunity to submit a narrative medical 

report from her physician, which included a medical diagnosis and an opinion on causal 

relationship. OWCP subsequently received Dr. Biggs’ June 11, 2018 report which released 

appellant from care as the diagnosed right lower extremity pain had resolved. The Board has 

consistently held that a diagnosis of pain does not constitute a basis for payment of compensation, 

as pain is a symptom rather than a specific diagnosis.12 As such, Dr. Biggs’ reports are insufficient 

to establish a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted May 24, 2018 employment 

incident.13

Appellant has not submitted medical evidence from a physician other than Dr. Biggs, and 

as such, the record of evidence does not contain a medical diagnosis from a physician. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish her 

traumatic injury claim.

On appeal appellant contends that the medical evidence of record met her burden of proof 

to establish causal relationship between the claimed right leg injury and the accepted April 24, 

2018 employment incident. For the reasons set forth herein, she has not met her burden of proof.

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 her burden of proof to establish a right lower 

extremity injury causally related the accepted April 24, 2018 employment incident.

 

11 Findings of pain or discomfort alone do not satisfy the medical aspect of the fact of injury medical determination. 

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Fact of Injury, Chapter 2.803.4a(6) (August 2012). See also

A.F., supra note 7.

12 A.F., supra note 7; Robert Broome, 57 ECAB 339, 342 (2004).

13 A.F., supra note 7.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 2, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 3, 2019

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