United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

_________________________________________

D.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, 

PUGENT SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD & 

INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE FACILITY, 

Bremerton, WA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0314

Issued: September 24, 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 28, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 26, 2017 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 met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 24, 2017 appellant, then a 66-year-old welder, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) for right hand/wrist carpal tunnel syndrome, due to factors of his federal 

employment including welding in various locations. He indicated that he first became aware of 

his condition on April 18, 2009, and first realized the condition was related to factors of his federal 

employment on April 18, 2017. Appellant did not stop work. On the reverse side of the claim 

form, the employing establishment noted that he first reported his condition to his supervisor on 

July 17, 2017. Appellant’s supervisor indicated that while he had not seen any medical records 

for appellant’s condition, he personally observed appellant’s hands and noted they were “worked 

hard.” He also noted having previously observed appellant using vibrating tools while working as 

a welder. 

In a letter dated September 13, 2017, OWCP informed appellant of the type of evidence 

needed to support his claim and requested that he submit such evidence within 30 days. It

particularly requested that he complete a questionnaire describing the employment activities he 

believed caused or contributed to his condition. OWCP also advised appellant to submit a narrative 

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

relationship. 

Appellant did not provide a response to the questionnaire.

OWCP received records from the employing establishment to include: a notification of 

personnel action (Standard Form 50); a welder job summary; and a portion of a certificate of 

medical examination pertaining to the functional requirements and environmental factors involved 

to perform the duties of a welder. 

In an April 18, 2017 report, Leslie B. Schoneman, a physician assistant, noted that 

appellant had symptoms consistent with bilateral peripheral neuropathy and also likely bilateral 

carpal tunnel syndrome. She explained that “both of these symptoms are likely related to your 

diabetes.” Ms. Schoneman also noted that appellant’s primary care physician previously 

diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in 2009. She explained that the work causality was 

unclear and could not support this claim. Ms. Schoneman commented that it was more likely that 

appellant’s condition was not work related.

Dr. Jenny Amani, a family medicine specialist, completed an April 18, 2017 duty status 

report (Form CA-17). She noted “ongoing worsening bilateral hand pain with numbness and 

tingling in first three fingers of both hands.”

By decision dated October 26, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that he failed 

to establish fact of injury as appellant had not described in detail the employment factors he 

believed either caused or contributed to his condition. It concluded, therefore, that the 

requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including 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 

of FECA,3that 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

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.6 

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant failed to meet his burden of proof to establish an injury in 

the performance of duty.

Appellant alleged that he developed a right hand condition due to “weld[ing] in various 

location[s].” However, he did not otherwise describe his specific duties as a welder that he 

believed either caused or contributed to his right hand condition. On September 13, 2017 OWCP 

advised appellant of the need for additional factual information regarding his alleged right hand 

injury, but he did not respond to its factual questionnaire or otherwise provide a narrative 

describing the implicated factors of his federal employment. 

An employee’s statement as to how the injury occurred is of great probative value and will 

stand unless refuted by strong or persuasive evidence.

7

 However, in this instance appellant did not 

provide a statement as to how the injury occurred. As noted, he bears the burden of submitting a 

factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the 

 

2

Id.

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 S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

7 C.C., Docket No. 10-2054 (issued July 8, 2011).
4

presence or occurrence of the disease or condition.

8

 Accordingly, appellant has not established an 

injury in the performance of duty. 

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.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 26, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 24, 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

 

8 See supra note 6.