United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.E., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Ogden, UT, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0074

Issued: June 4, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 9, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 3, 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.

ISSUE

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

condition causally related to the accepted July 11, 2019 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 12, 2019 appellant, then a 40-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 11, 2019 he suffered heat exhaustion which resulted in 

vomiting due to exposure to temperatures of greater than 90 degrees while in the performance of 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

duty. On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment acknowledged that he

was injured in the performance of duty. Appellant did not stop work.

In a July 11, 2019 report, an emergency medical technician noted that appellant was 

experiencing chest pain and nausea. The report includes a diagnosis of nausea and hyperglycemia 

and indicates that intravenous fluids were administered while appellant was transported to the

hospital.

In a July 11, 2019 report, Dr. Rory Carrera, a Board-certified specialist in internal 

medicine, noted that appellant, a type 2 diabetic, was experiencing increased weakness and nausea 

after working longer walking routes as a mail carrier. He reviewed laboratory testing results and 

diagnosed an acute kidney injury, a combination of prerenal azotemia and medication toxicity, 

hyperkalemia, and metabolic acidosis.

A July 12, 2019 electrocardiogram revealed occasional premature ventricular complexes. 

In a July 12, 2019 work excuse note, a physician with an illegible signature noted that 

appellant could return to work without restrictions on July 17, 2019.

Hospital emergency records dated July 13, 2019, reported by a nurse, detailed appellant’s 

procedures and physical assessments. Appellant’s diagnoses were listed as acute kidney injury, 

hyperglycemia due to type 2 diabetes mellitus, dehydration, and hyperkalemia.

On July 15, 2019 appellant submitted a job position description which detailed the duties 

and responsibilities of a city carrier assistant.

In an August 30, 2019 development letter, OWCP indicated that when appellant’s claim 

was first received it appeared to be a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time from 

work and, based on these criteria and because the employing establishment did not controvert 

continuation of pay or otherwise challenge the case, payment of a limited amount of medical 

expenses was administratively approved. It explained that it had reopened the claim for 

consideration because his medical expenses had exceeded $1,500.00. OWCP requested additional 

factual and medical evidence in support of his claim and provided a questionnaire for his 

completion. It afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. No additional 

evidence was received.

By decision dated October 3, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim,

finding that although he established that the July 11, 2019 employment incident occurred as 

alleged, the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in 

connection with the accepted employment incident.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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 

 

2

Id.
3

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 if 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. Fact of injury 

consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The first 

component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that allegedly 

occurred. The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury.6

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.7 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 the diagnosed 

condition and the specific employment incident identified by the claimant.8

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted several medical reports, including a July 11, 

2019 report from Dr. Carrera. Dr. Carrera noted that appellant worked as a mail carrier on a 

walking route that had been getting longer. He reviewed laboratory testing results and diagnosed 

an acute kidney injury a combination of prerenal azotemia and medication toxicity, hyperkalemia, 

and metabolic acidosis. The Board finds that this assessment from Dr. Carrera establishes a 

medical diagnosis in association with the accepted July 11, 2019 employment incident.

 

3 Y.W., Docket No. 19-1877 (issued April 30, 2020); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

4 C.B., Docket No. 20-0250 (issued April 28, 2020); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 

312 (1988).

5 20 C.F.R. § 10.115; H.A., Docket No. 18-1253 (issued April 23, 2020); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued 

February 7, 2014); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

6 T.H., Docket No. 19-1891 (issued April 3, 2020); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143 (1989).

7 L.P., Docket No. 19-1812 (issued April 16, 2020); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

8 C.B., supra note 4; Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).
4

As the medical evidence of record establishes a diagnosed condition, the case must be 

remanded for consideration of the medical evidence with regard to the issue of causal relationship. 

Following such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.9

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 3, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion of the Board.

Issued: June 4, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

9 Y.W., supra note 3.