United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

St. Louis, MO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0353

Issued: July 14, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 9, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 10, 2021 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 to consider the merits of this case.

2

ISSUE

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

causally related to the accepted October 3, 2021 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notesthat,followingtheDecember 10, 2021 decision, OWCP receivedadditional 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 October 27, 2021 appellant, then a 21-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on October 3, 2021 she sustained herniated discs at C5 and 

C6, an unknown left leg injury, and bruising and swelling in her chest and stomach when her 

seatbelt failed and her chest and stomach slammed into the steering wheel of her vehicle as a result 

of a motor vehicle accident while in the performance of duty. She noted that her vehicle 

hydroplaned off a road into a stop sign and into a rock bluff. Appellant indicated that she stopped 

work on the date of injury. In an accompanying October 7, 2021 narrative statement, she reiterated 

her account of the alleged employment incident. Appellant also noted that she was evaluated by 

emergency medical service personnel at the accident site and refused to be transported by 

ambulance to a hospital for further evaluation. After the postmaster arrived to take pictures of the 

accident scene, she went to the hospital for treatment.

OWCP, in a November 1, 2021 development letter, informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to establish her 

claim and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

respond.

OWCP subsequently received hospital records from an October 3, 2021 emergency 

department visit, including diagnostic studies and an October 3, 2021 after-visit summary and an 

October 4, 2021 progress note of Dr. Charles R. Caffrey, Board-certified in emergency medicine. 

Dr. Caffrey noted that appellant presented with on-the-job injury that occurred when the mail truck 

she was driving hydroplaned and ran into a brick wall on October 3, 2021. He further noted that 

she mainly complained of pain in her abdomen, chest wall, left knee, and right upper extremity.

Dr. Caffrey reviewed diagnostic test results and diagnosed acute left knee pain; motor vehicle 

collision, initial encounter; and abdominal pain, unspecified abdominal location. He also noted 

that appellant had sustained a possible cervical herniated disc, but that she denied any pain on 

palpation, or any radicular component of pain.

OWCP, by decision dated December 10, 2021, accepted that the October 3, 2021 

employment incident occurred, as alleged, but denied appellant’s claim, finding that she had not 

submitted medical evidence sufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related 

to the accepted employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been 

met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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 timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation of FECA,4that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that 

3

Id.

4 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).
3

any disability or medical 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 upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.6

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined 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 and place, and in the manner alleged. Second component is whether the employment incident 

caused a personal injury and can be established only by medical evidence. 7

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific 

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence.8 The opinion of 

the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, 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 specific employment factors 

identified by the employee.9

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted October 3, 2021 employment incident.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted an October 3, 2021 after-visit summary and 

an October 4, 2021 progress note from Dr. Caffrey, which related that appellant was seen in the 

hospital emergency department on October 3, 2021 for pain in her abdomen, chest wall, left knee, 

and right upper extremity following the accepted employment incident. Dr. Caffrey reviewed

diagnostic test results and diagnosed acute left knee pain; motor vehicle collision, initial encounter; 

and abdominal pain, unspecified abdominal location. The Board has held that pain is a description 

of a symptom, not a diagnosis of a medical condition.

10

 Dr. Caffrey also indicated that appellant 

5 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020); 

James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); 

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

8

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April24, 2019); RobertG. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

9 T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 2020); 

Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

10 See G.J., Docket No. 21-0528(issued February 1, 2022); K.S., Docket No. 19-1433 (issued April26, 2021); S.L., 

Docket No. 19-1536 (issued June 26, 2020); D.Y., Docket No. 20-0112 (issued June25, 2020).
4

had sustained a possible herniated cervical disc; however, she did not have pain on palpation or a 

radicular component of pain. This opinion is speculative in nature as he only identified a possible 

diagnosis. The Board has held that medical opinions that are speculative or equivocal are of 

diminished probative value.11 Further, Dr. Caffrey did not provide an opinion on causal 

relationship. The Board has held that a medical report is of no probative value if it does not offer 

an opinion as to whether the accepted employment incident caused or aggravated a diagnosed 

condition.12

As there is no medical evidence of record establishing a diagnosed medical condition 

causally related to the accepted employment incident, the Board finds that appellant has not met 

her burden of proof.

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 medical 

condition causally related to the accepted October 3, 2021 employment incident.

11 N.H., Docket No. 21-1133 (issued February 25, 2022);see D.B., Docket No. 20-0775 (issued July 28, 2021).

12 G.J., supra note 10; L.E., Docket No. 19-0470 (issued August 12, 2019); M.J., Docket No. 18-1114 (issued 

February5, 2019); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued 

July 6, 2018).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 10, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 14, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board