United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

Y.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CHESTER POST 

OFFICE, Chester, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1055

Issued: February 24, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 21, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 5, 2020 merit decision 

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

 

1 Appellant submitted a timely request for oral argument before the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). Pursuant to the 

Board’s Rules of Procedure, oral argument may be held in the discretion of the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(a). In 

support of her oral argument request, appellant asserted that oral argument should be granted because her claimed 

injury had occurred on a different date than indicated by the employing establishment, that she has been experiencing 

pain ever since, and that, although she apprised her supervisor of the injury, “no recourse was taken.” The Board, in 

exercising its discretion, denies appellant’s request for oral argument because the arguments on appeal can adequately 

be addressed in a decision based on a review of the case record. Oral argument in this appeal would further delay 

issuance of a Board decision and not serve a useful purpose. As such, the oral argument request is denied and this 

decision is based on the case record as submitted to the Board.
2

Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over 

the merits of this case.3

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 12, 2019 appellant, then a 49-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed a torn meniscus and swelling in both knees 

due to factors of her federal employment. On the reverse side of the claim form appellant’s 

supervisor noted that appellant had begun work with the employing establishment in May 2019 

and had requested light-duty work.

By a letter dated December 23, 2019, the employing establishment challenged appellant’s 

claim. It noted that, per station management, appellant began working at the employing 

establishment in May 2019 and had been seen wearing knee braces at the time. The employing 

establishment contended that appellant had not established fact of injury and that her claim should 

be denied.

In a development letter dated January 2, 2020, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and 

provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. By a

separate letter of even date, it also requested additional factual information from the employing 

establishment regarding the physical requirements of her employment duties.

On January 12, 2020 appellant responded to OWCP’s development questionnaire. She

explained that, as of June 4, 2019, she had been promoted to the position of regular city carrier and 

assigned to a long route that involved walking up flights of stairs. Appellant alleged that her knees 

“had a problem” with the amount of climbing required. Within a month of assignment, she noticed 

pain and swelling in her knees, and she purchased knee braces to wear daily. Appellant denied 

any preexisting conditions or the wearing of knee braces prior to the assignment of the route. She

stated that she had reported the incident in June 2019, but that no actions were taken until the knee 

pain was unbearable. Appellant noted that she had been diagnosed with a torn meniscus and 

bilateral fluid on the knees in August 2019. She requested that she be permitted to perform her 

assigned work duties on a more suitable route.

 

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that, following the February 5, 2020 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.
3

On February 3, 2020 OWCP received a position description, which outlined a letter 

carrier’s duties and responsibilities.

By decision dated February 5, 2020, OWCP accepted that the employment factors had 

occurred, as alleged. It denied the claim, however, as appellant had not submitted medical 

evidence containing a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted employment 

factors. OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury 

as defined by FECA.

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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation of FECA,5that 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.6 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.7

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit: (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 identified employment factors.8

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition causally related to factors of her federal employment.

In its January 2, 2020 development letter, OWCP noted that it had not received any medical 

evidence, which established a diagnosed medical condition resulting from factors of appellant’s 

federal employment. It provided her 30 days to submit the requested medical evidence. It is 

appellant’s burden of proof to obtain and submit medical documentation containing a firm 

 

4 Supra note 2.

5

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

6

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

7 R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April 25, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

8 L.D., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); Victor J. 

Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
4

diagnosis causally related to the accepted employment factors.9 As appellant has not submitted 

rationalized medical evidence establishing a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the 

accepted factors of her federal employment, she has not met her burden of proof to establish her 

claim.10

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 a diagnosed 

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 5, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: February 24, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

9 See C.W., Docket No. 20-1027 (issued November 18, 2020).

10 See M.O., Docket No. 19-1398 (issued August 13, 2020); J.T., Docket No. 18-1755 (issued April 4, 2019).