United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Santa Barbara, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0842

Issued: September 17, 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 March 11, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 14, 2019 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 her burden of proof to establish entitlement to 

continuation of pay (COP). 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the January 14, 2019 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

On November 27, 2018 appellant, then a 57-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 21, 2018 the duties of her modified position caused 

a right shoulder strain and biceps tendinitis. The employing establishment controverted the claim

claiming that appellant had not been in the performance of duty on November 21, 2018 as this was 

her scheduled day off. It also noted that this was not a claim for a traumatic injury. Appellant 

stopped work on November 21, 2018.

In a development letter dated December 11, 2018, OWCP informed appellant that 

additional factual and medical evidence was necessary to establish her claim. It advised appellant 

of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and provided appellant a questionnaire for her 

completion. OWCP advised appellant regarding the type of evidence needed and afforded her 30 

days to submit the requested evidence.

On January 4, 2019 OWCP received appellant’s response to the development 

questionnaire. Appellant advised that she was filing an occupational disease claim as she attributed 

her right shoulder condition to performing the duties of her modified position. She described the 

duties she believed caused her right shoulder pain, which included opening three doors, moving 

mail from the back to the front of the mail truck, and opening the back door of the mail vehicle. 

By decision dated January 14, 2019, OWCP accepted appellant’s occupational disease 

claim for right shoulder calcific tendinitis. By separate decision of even date, it denied appellant’s

claim for COP finding that she was not entitled to it because she had alleged an occupational 

disease and not a traumatic injury. OWCP advised appellant that the denial of COP did not affect 

her entitlement to compensation, and that she could, therefore, file a claim for compensation (Form 

CA-7) for lost wages due to her accepted employment injury.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An occupational disease or illness means a condition produced by the work environment 

over a period longer than a single workday or shift.3 A traumatic injury means a condition of the 

body caused by a specific event or incident or a series of events or incidents, within a single 

workday or shift.4 Such condition must be caused by external force, including stress or strain, 

which is identifiable as to time and place of occurrence and member or function of body.5

OWCP’s regulations provide, in pertinent part, that to be eligible for continuation of pay, 

an employee must: (1) have a traumatic injury which is job related and the cause of the disability 

and/or the cause of lost time due to the need for medical examination and treatment; (2) file Form 

 

3 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q).

4

Id. at § 10.5(ee).

5

Id.
3

CA-1 within 30 days of the date of the injury; and (3) begin losing time from work due to the 

traumatic injury within 45 days of the injury.6

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish entitlement to 

COP. 

On November 27, 2018 appellant filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that on 

November 21, 2018 she developed right shoulder strain and right biceps tendinitis due to the duties 

of her modified position. The employing establishment controverted the claim noting that she had 

not been scheduled to work on November 21, 2018 and that this was not a claim for a traumatic 

injury. In response to questions posed by OWCP, appellant advised that her claim was for an 

occupational disease rather than a traumatic injury as her right shoulder conditions occurred over 

more than a single workday or shift.

7

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant’s claim was more 

appropriately classified as an occupational disease rather than a traumatic injury.8 Consequently, 

as appellant’s claimed disability was not caused by a traumatic injury, she is not eligible for COP.9 

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 entitlement to 

COP. 

 

6 20 C.F.R. § 10.205(a)(1-3); see also C.C., Docket No. 18-0912 (issued July 11, 2019); J.M., Docket No. 09-1563 

(issued February 26, 2010).

7 See supra note 3.

8 See J.F., Docket No. 10-2134 (issued July 6, 2011).

9 See id.; see also C.C., Docket No. 18-0912 (issued July 11, 2019); J.V., Docket No. 15-0942 (issued 

March 8, 2016).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 14, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 17, 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