United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

H.O., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

North Metro, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1176

Issued: November 27, 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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 8, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 6, 2016 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 an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 15, 2016 appellant, a 55-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed severe bilateral shoulder pain. He first became 

aware of his condition and realized the condition was employment related on September 15, 2016. 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

On his Form CA-2, appellant did not include a description of the particular employment 

activity/activities he believed either caused or contributed to his bilateral shoulder pain. He

stopped work on September 15, 2016.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a position description which described his 

federal duties, including delivering and collecting mail on foot or by vehicle. 

Appellant also submitted a September 15, 2016 intake form indicating that he was injured 

while delivering mail. The form report noted that, with the constant repetition, his shoulder began 

to hurt and that he had a prior shoulder surgery in March 2013. 

In a September 15, 2016 report, Charmaine Downer, a nurse practitioner, diagnosed 

cervical strain and bilateral arm strain.

2

 She noted that appellant constantly moved packages at his 

job and both of his shoulders began to hurt during the time of work.

Ms. Downer also submitted a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated September 15, 2016

providing work restrictions.

In an October 3, 2016 development letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of 

his claim and instructed him as to the additional information necessary to establish his claim. It 

also included a questionnaire which inquired as to the work factors which he believed had caused 

him to sustain an occupational disease and the frequency and duration of those factors. Appellant 

was afforded 30 days to submit additional evidence and respond to its inquiries. 

In response, appellant resubmitted Ms. Downer’s September 15, 2016 report. He did not 

provide a response to the questionnaire.

By decision dated December 6, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that he failed to establish fact of injury.

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 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.3 These are the essential elements of every compensation claim regardless of 

whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4 To establish that 

an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational disease claim, an employee 

 

2 The diagnoses included: strain of muscle, fascia and tendon of neck (cervical); strain of unspecified muscle, fascia 

and tendon at shoulder and upper arm level, left arm; strain of unspecified muscle, fascia and tendon at shoulder and 

upper arm level, right arm; and pain. 

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

4 L.B., Docket No. 18-0411 (issued September 12, 2018); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).
3

must submit the following: (1) a factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have 

caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or condition; (2) medical 

evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation 

is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related 

to the employment factors identified by the employee.5

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged.

Upon review of the evidence of record it is found that appellant has not established the 

factual component of his claim as he failed to describe the job activities he believed contributed to 

his alleged employment injury and did not explain the duration of such activities. It is appellant’s 

burden of proof to establish the essential elements of his claim.6 To establish a claim for 

compensation in an occupational disease claim, an employee must submit a statement which 

identifies the factors of employment believed to have caused his or her condition.7 Appellant failed 

to provide sufficient detail to establish that an occupational exposure occurred as alleged. He did 

not adequately describe the circumstances of his injury, the duties he was performing which caused 

his injury, or the mechanism of injury.8

In an October 3, 2016 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant respond to its 

questionnaire and provide detailed information concerning the job activities he believed 

contributed to his alleged shoulder injury. While a September 15, 2016 medical form report 

generally noted constant repetition while delivering mail, there is no statement from appellant 

describing the specific employment-related activities which he believed contributed to his 

condition and the amount of time he spent engaging in such activities.9 Absent this evidence, as 

was requested in the questionnaire sent to appellant, it cannot be determined whether the history 

of injury provided in the medical evidence of record corresponds with his alleged injury.

The Board finds that the record lacks sufficient factual evidence to establish the specific 

details of how the claimed injury occurred. As appellant has not established the factual aspect of 

his claim, the medical evidence regarding causal relationship need not be addressed.10

 

5 See D.R., Docket No. 09-1723 (issued May 20, 2010). See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); 

Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).

6 Supra note 3.

7 D.M., Docket No. 18-0335 (issued June 18, 2018).

8

Id.

9 See D.C., Docket No. 18-0082 (issued July 12, 2018).

10 See V.F., 58 ECAB 321, 327 (2007).
4

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 an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 6, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: November 27, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board