United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Galesburg, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1443

Issued: March 20, 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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On July 20, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 22, 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a left toe condition 

causally related to the accepted April 27, 2018 employment incident.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the June 22, 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 27, 2018 appellant, then a 49-year-old carrier technician, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date he stepped on a “shingles nail” while in the 

performance of duty, which caused a “small poke in toe.” He did not stop work.

Appellant first sought treatment on April 27, 2018 at the Galesburg Cottage Hospital, 

where he was seen and discharged the same day. In a report of even date, Dr. Thomas Singel, an 

osteopathic physician Board-certified in emergency medicine, related that appellant was seen for 

a possible puncture wound to the foot. He recounted appellant’s statement that he felt something 

rubbing against his left toe. Appellant took off his shoe and found a nail sticking inside his shoe. 

He noted that the nail had not punctured the toe as he did not notice any blood. Dr. Singel related 

that appellant was given a tetanus shot.

An April 27, 2018 accident report completed by the postmaster, P.A., indicated that 

appellant stepped on a nail, which was a “rusty rotting nail and it scratched his toe.” She also 

noted that he had employing-establishment “approved shoes on with good tread.” P.A. related that 

appellant noticed something in his shoe at approximately 1:30 p.m. while delivering mail, and that 

he had received a tetanus shot and returned to work after obtaining treatment.

In a May 9, 2018 letter, the employing establishment controverted the claim based on the 

fact that the physician had not provided a diagnosis. It also requested that continuation of pay 

(COP) be disallowed.

An April 27, 2018 duty status report (Form CA-17), completed by a physician with an 

illegible signature, noted that appellant “stepped on nail-through shoe.” The physician indicated 

“no injury noted,” and wrote “none” for clinical findings.

By development letter dated May 22, 2018, OWCP advised appellant of the factual and 

medical evidence needed to establish the claim. It noted that he had not provided a detailed 

description of how the injury occurred. OWCP also noted that appellant failed to describe the 

physical location of the injury. For example, appellant did not identify whether it was the right or 

left toe. OWCP requested that he respond to the questions on an attached development 

questionnaire and submit medical evidence from a physician which provided an opinion supported 

by a medical rationale as to how the reported work incident caused or aggravated a diagnosed 

medical condition. It afforded appellant 30 days to submit the additional information. However, 

no further evidence was received.

By decision dated June 22, 2018, OWCP denied the claim. It found that appellant had 

established that he was a federal civilian employee who filed a timely claim and that the injury 

and/or event(s) occurred as described. However, appellant had not established the medical 

component of the third basic element, fact of injury. OWCP noted that he had not submitted 

evidence which contained a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted April 27, 2018 

employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that he had not met the requirements to establish an 

injury as defined by FECA.
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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,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 determine whether an employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. There are two 

components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must submit sufficient 

evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the time,

place, and in the manner alleged.6 Second, the employee must submit medical evidence to 

establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.7 An employee may establish that 

an incident occurred in the performance of duty as alleged, but fail to establish that the disability 

or specific condition for which compensation is being claimed is causally related to the injury.8

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish causal 

relationship is rationalized medical evidence. The opinion of the physician must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable medical 

certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship 

between a diagnosed condition and the specific employment factor identified by the employee.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a left toe 

condition causally related to the accepted April 27, 2018 employment incident.

Dr. Singel noted that appellant was seen for a possible puncture wound, but that appellant 

had described a rubbing sensation against his left toe. He did not observe an actual puncture, but 

 

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 A.D., Docket No. 17-1855 (issued February 26, 2018).

7 D.M., Docket No. 18-1434 (issued February 22, 2019); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

8 G.N., Docket No. 18-0403 (issued September 13, 2018); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000). 

Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997).

9 C.C., Docket No. 18-1099 (issued December 21, 2018). 
4

provided a tetanus shot. The Board finds that the medical report of Dr. Singel lacks a firm 

diagnosis and does not contain the necessary rationalized medical opinion regarding causal 

relationship. Therefore, Dr. Singel’s medical report is of limited probative value.10

An April 27, 2018 duty status report, completed by a physician with an illegible signature, 

revealed that appellant “stepped on nail-through shoe.” The Board has held that unsigned reports 

or reports that bear illegible signatures cannot be considered as probative medical evidence 

because they lack proper identification.11 Therefore, this report is insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim.

The medical reports appellant submitted do not adequately address how the April 27, 2018 

employment incident caused a diagnosed medical condition and; therefore, these reports are 

insufficient to establish his claim.

12

 Accordingly, appellant has not met his burden of proof to 

establish his traumatic injury claim.

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 a left toe 

condition causally related to the accepted April 27, 2018 employment incident.

 

10 See J.K., Docket No. 18-1508 (issued February 5, 2019). 

11 Thomas L. Agee, 56 ECAB 465 (2005); Richard F. Williams, 55 ECAB 343 (2004).

12 D.H., Docket No. 17-1913 (issued December 13, 2018).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 22, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 20, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board