United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NORFOLK 

NAVAL SHIPYARD, Portsmouth, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0339

Issued: July 12, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 9, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 17, 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.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an occupational 

disease in the performance of duty, as alleged.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the September 17, 2018 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, 

the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record 

that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the 

Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this 

additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

In July 31, 2018 appellant, then a 45-year-old rigger, filed an occupational disease claim 

(Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained carpal tunnel syndrome due to constant lifting, pushing, 

and twisting of his hands. He indicated that he first became aware of his condition, and its 

relationship to factors of his federal employment, on September 24, 2017. On the reverse side of 

the claim form, the employing establishment noted that appellant first reported his condition to his 

supervisor on July 10, 2018, and indicated that he had not stopped work. 

In a supplemental statement accompanying the Form CA-2, appellant listed his 

employment activities which included pushing, pulling, climbing, turning wrenches, shackling 

screws, carrying heavy tool bags, lifting heavy objects, and fine hand manipulation in tying knots.

In a report dated June 18, 2018, Dr. Arthur W. Wardell, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome based on appellant’s physical and electrodiagnostic 

examinations. He related that he reviewed appellant’s employment activities, and opined that these 

activities were “a significant factor in the development of [appellant]’s carpal tunnel syndrome.” 

Dr. Wardell also attached a nerve conduction study report dated October 24, 2017.

In a report dated July 25, 2018, Dr. Wardell noted that appellant was out of work from 

September 13, 2017 to July 29, 2018, and that he could resume light-duty work on July 30, 2018. 

In a development letter dated August 14, 2018, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies 

of his claim, and informed him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish his 

claim. It requested that he respond to a questionnaire to substantiate the factual elements of his 

claim and to submit a comprehensive narrative medical report. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days 

to submit the necessary evidence.

In a separate development letter, OWCP requested that the employing establishment 

provide comments from a knowledgeable supervisor on the accuracy of all statements provided by 

appellant relative to his claim. It also requested a description of appellant’s employment duties 

that required repetitive hand and wrist movements, and a copy of his position description and 

physical requirements of his job. OWCP afforded the employing establishment 30 days to submit 

the requested evidence. 

On August 20, 2018 OWCP received a notification that appellant had retired effective 

August 6, 2018. 

In a memorandum dated August 31, 2018, the employing establishment indicated that it 

“concurs with the accuracy of this claim.” However, by letter dated September 10, 2018, it

challenged appellant’s occupational disease claim. The employing establishment indicated that he

was on temporary total disability for a right shoulder injury from April 7 to July 24, 2016, and that 

he was on temporary restrictions from July 25 to September 6, 2016. At that time, appellant’s

restrictions included no repetitive motion of his right arm. The employing establishment noted 

that he was again totally disabled from September 7, 2016 to June 21, 2017, and returned to work 

with temporary restrictions from June 22 to August 18, 2017. Appellant’s restrictions at that time 

included intermittent grasping/manipulation of his right arm. The employing establishment related 
3

that he was also on temporary total disability from September 13 to October 9, 2017 for a left 

shoulder injury.3 It contended that appellant never reported any carpal tunnel symptoms. 

In a letter dated September 12, 2018, Dr. Wardell diagnosed right median neuropathy of

the wrist and right ulnar neuropathy of the elbow based on physical and electrodiagnostic 

examination and a review of appellant’s symptoms. He opined that appellant’s employment 

activities were a significant factor in the development of his conditions. 

By decision dated September 17, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the injury or events occurred as alleged. It 

noted that he had not responded to OWCP’s August 14, 2018 development letter. OWCP 

concluded, therefore, that appellant had not met the requirements to establish an injury as defined 

by FECA. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

A claimant seeking benefits under FECA4 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 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

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit: (1) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence 

of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) a factual statement identifying 

employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the 

disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally 

related to the identified employment factors.8

An injury does not have to be confirmed by an eyewitness in order to establish the fact that 

an employee sustained an injury while in the performance of duty. However, the employee’s 

 

3 The record reflects that appellant has an accepted claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx861 for an April 6, 2016 

injury, for right shoulder strain and partial right rotator cuff tear. Appellant also has an accepted claim under OWCP 

File No. xxxxxx692, for an August 21, 2017 left shoulder sprain.

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 M.S., Docket No. 18-1554 (issued February 8, 2019); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
4

statements must be consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances and his or her 

subsequent course of action.9 Such circumstances as late notification of injury, lack of 

confirmation of injury, continuing to work without apparent difficulty following the alleged injury 

and failure to obtain medical treatment may cast doubt on an employee’s statements in determining 

whether he or she had established a prima facie claim for compensation. However, an employee’s 

statement alleging that an injury occurred at a given time and in a given manner is of great 

probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong and persuasive evidence.10

ANALYSIS

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

OWCP denied appellant’s claim because he failed to establish that the claimed work events 

occurred as alleged. The evidence of record supports that his job duties required performing 

repetitive tasks including pushing, pulling, climbing, turning wrenches, shackling screws, carrying 

heavy tool bags, lifting heavy objects, and using his hands to tie several knots. On August 13, 

2018 OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide comments from a knowledgeable

supervisor on the accuracy of statements provided on the Form CA-2. The employing 

establishment responded twice. First, on August 31, 2018, it responded noting that it concurred 

with the accuracy of appellant’s claim. Then, on September 10, 2018, it controverted appellant’s 

claim stating that appellant was on temporary total disability and on temporary restrictions for 

numerous months throughout 2016 and 2017, and that it was never notified of appellant’s alleged 

carpal tunnel symptoms. However, the employing establishment admitted that appellant’s 

temporary work restrictions from June 22 to August 18, 2017 allowed intermittent grasping/

manipulation with the right arm. As noted previously, an employee’s statement alleging that an 

injury occurred at a given time and in a given manner is of great probative value and will stand 

unless refuted by strong and persuasive evidence.11 The Board finds that the evidence establishes 

appellant’s employment duties as a rigger which included repetitive activities using his wrists and 

hands. 

As appellant has established accepted factors of his federal employment, OWCP must base 

its decision on an analysis of the medical evidence. The case will therefore be remanded to OWCP 

to analyze and develop the medical evidence of record.12 After this and other such further 

development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision on the merits of this 

claim.

CONCLUSION

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

 

9 M.S., id.; see B.B., Docket No. 12-0165 (issued July 26, 2012); Mary Jo Coppolino, 43 ECAB 988 (1992).

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 See D.K., Docket No. 17-0115 (issued June 1, 2018).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 17, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion.

Issued: July 12, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board