United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Columbus, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1592

Issued: February 25, 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 August 16, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 20, 2018 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to the Federal Employees’

Compensation Act2(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 her burden of proof to establish an upper extremity 

condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

 

1 The Board notes that following the July 20, 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 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 6, 2018 appellant, then a 57-year-old clerk, filed an occupational disease claim 

(Form CA-2) alleging that she developed left carpal tunnel syndrome and a left thumb condition 

causally related to factors of her federal employment. She indicated that she also experienced 

numbness and tingling on her right side. Appellant did not stop work. The employing 

establishment controverted the claim asserting that her carpal tunnel surgery scheduled for 

June 14, 2008 was unrelated to her employment.

On May 30, 2018 appellant signed a consent for a left carpal tunnel release and surgery on 

her left thumb at the carpometacarpal (CMC) joint.

In a June 12, 2018 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional 

factual and medical information in support of her occupational disease claim, including a detailed 

report from her attending physician addressing causal relationship between a diagnosed condition 

and factors of her federal employment. It afforded her 30 days to submit the requested information.

Appellant, in a June 23, 2018 response, attributed her condition to throwing and scanning 

boxes.3 She related that she had experienced numbness and tingling in her hands and fingers while 

throwing boxes. 

By decision dated July 20, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. It 

found that she had not submitted medical evidence supporting a diagnosed condition causally 

related to the accepted employment factors.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee 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 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.5 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.6

In an occupational disease claim, appellant’s burden requires submission of 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 

 

3 By letter dated July 19, 2018, the employing establishment confirmed that appellant threw parcels as part of her 

work duties. 

4 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

5

J.I., Docket No. 18-0286 (issued September 17, 2018).

6 A.J., Docket No. 18-0905 (issued December 10, 2018).
3

evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors 

identified by the employee.7

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical 

opinion evidence. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background of the employee, must be one of reasonable certainty, and must be supported by 

medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and

the specific employment factors identified by the employee.8

ANALYSIS

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

extremity condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. 

Appellant has not submitted medical evidence in support of her claim. OWCP advised her 

to provide a comprehensive medical report which described her symptoms, test results, diagnosis, 

and history of treatment, and a physician’s opinion, with medical reasons, addressing the cause of 

her condition and its relationship to the implicated employment factors.9 Appellant failed to 

submit the appropriate medical documentation in response to OWCP’s request. The Board has 

held that the mere fact that a condition manifests itself during a period of employment does not 

raise an inference of causal relationship.10 Such a relationship must be shown by rationalized 

medical evidence supporting causal relationship based upon a specific and accurate history of 

employment conditions which are alleged to have caused or exacerbated a disabling condition.11 

As appellant has not submitted medical evidence, the Board finds that she has not met her burden 

of proof to establish her occupational disease claim.12

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 an upper

extremity condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

 

7 R.M., Docket No. 18-0976 (issued January 3, 2019); P.D., Docket No. 17-1885 (issued September 17, 2018).

8 P.Y., Docket No. 18-1136 (issued January 7, 2019).

9 S.S., Docket No. 18-0309 (issued August 13, 2018).

10 Id.

11 D.L., Docket No. 18-1007 (issued November 28, 2018).

12 Supra note 9.
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 20, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: February 25, 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