United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, ROBINS 

AIR FORCE BASE, Warner Robins, GA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0381

Issued: July 16, 2019

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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 12, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 5, 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

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the November 5, 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

ISSUE

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

in the performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 16, 2018 appellant, then a 53-year-old sheet metal worker, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained a right hand injury when performing 

repetitive duties including drilling downward for long periods of time, and using rivet guns, 

hydraulic tools, and power tools, while in the performance of duty. She indicated that she first 

became aware of her condition on August 7, 2018, and realized its relationship to her federal 

employment on August 10, 2018. On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing 

establishment noted that appellant stopped work on August 10, 2018 and returned to work that 

same day, at which time she was placed on “desk work.”

In a report dated August 10, 2018, Dr. Sean I. Moore, Board-certified in public health and

general preventative medicine, indicated that appellant could return to work with temporary 

medical restrictions of desk work only, minimal use of right hand, no climbing, and no lifting over 

five pounds. 

On August 16, 2018 OWCP received a position description for a sheet metal worker. 

According to the position description, the sheet metal work position required the use and 

maintenance of tools, including basic hand and power tools, such as hammers, chisels, hand snips, 

band and circle saws, squaring shears, seamers, bar folder, brakes, and stakes. 

In a development letter dated August 21, 2018, OWCP advised appellant of the factual and 

medical deficiencies of her claim. It provided a questionnaire for her completion to establish the 

employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to her medical condition, and requested 

a medical report with a diagnosis from her attending physician explaining how and why her federal 

work activities caused, contributed to, or aggravated her medical condition. OWCP afforded 

appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

In a development letter of even date, OWCP informed the employing establishment of 

appellant’s claim. It requested that it submit comments from a knowledgeable supervisor 

regarding the accuracy of appellant’s statement, a description of her tasks that resulted in the 

exposure or contact, and a copy of her position description. 

In three reports dated August 10, 15, and 20, 2018, Dr. Moore indicated that appellant 

complained of severe pain in her right hand and had related her employment duties as a sheet metal 

worker. He noted in the history portion of the August 10, 2018 report that appellant attributed her 

right hand condition to “drilling downwards for long periods of time. Appellant also uses rivet 

guns, hydraulic and power tools all day.” Dr. Moore included a similar history in his August 20, 

2018 report. He diagnosed “other soft tissue disorders related to use, overuse, and pressure, right 

hand,” and noted right hand pain. Dr. Moore related that appellant could return to work with 

temporary medical restrictions of desk work only. 
3

By decision dated November 5, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the injury or events occurred in the 

performance of duty, as alleged. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met 

to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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 period of FECA,4that 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.5 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.6

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.7

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 

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

subsequent course of action.8 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 serious 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.9

 

3 Supra note 1.

4 M.S., Docket No. 18-1554 (issued February 8, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 

59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

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

Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 C.L., Docket No. 19-0042 (issued April 17, 2019); 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).

7 C.L., id.; Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

8 M.S., supra note 5; see B.B., Docket No. 12-0165 (issued July 26, 2012); Mary Jo Coppolino, 43 ECAB 

988 (1992).

9

Id.
4

ANALYSIS

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

The evidence of record supports that her job duties as a sheet metal worker required that 

she repetitively use various hand-held tools. On the Form CA-2, appellant indicated that her job 

duties required her to drill downward for long periods of time, using rivet guns, hydraulic tools, 

and power tools all day. She further noted pain and swelling in her right hand two days prior to 

the filing of her claim. Dr. Moore’s August 10 and 20, 2018 reports also contained a description 

of appellant’s employment duties which were substantially similar to those she provided on the 

claim form. 

In addition, in the August 21, 2018 development letter, OWCP requested that the 

employing establishment provide comments from a knowledgeable supervisor on the accuracy of 

statements provided on the Form CA-2; however, no additional evidence was received. The Board 

thus finds that the evidence is undisputed that appellant’s work duties as a sheet metal worker 

included performing repetitive activities, with various hand tools, using her right hand.

10

As appellant has established factors of her 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.11 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. 

 

10 Id. 

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 5, 2018 decision of the Office of 

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

consistent with this opinion. 

Issued: July 16, 2019

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board