United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Hudson, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0787

Issued: September 16, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 26, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

December 19, 2019 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

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.3

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that, following the December 19, 2019 decision, appellant submitted 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained 

a right shoulder injury while in the performance of duty on May 7, 2019, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 14, 2019 appellant, then a 56-year-old rural carrier associate (RCA), filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that at 3:30 p.m. on May 7, 2019 she sustained an 

injury to her right shoulder while in the performance of duty. She explained that she was hit by a 

set of double doors when another employee pushed a cart through to enter a room. Following the 

incident, appellant encountered extreme pain in her right shoulder and arm that permeated to her 

neck. The reverse side of the claim form notes appellant’s duty stations as: Hudson Post Office; 

Pittsford Post Office; Waldron Post Office; and Clayton Post Office. The form further indicates 

that appellant’s regular work hours were 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; however, with regard to 

appellant’s work schedule there were no guaranteed hours as her schedule varied. Additiona lly, 

appellant’s supervisor indicated on the reverse side of the claim form that she was not in the 

performance of duty when the injury occurred as she was off the clock and entered the building to 

review her work schedule without looking through the window to confirm clearance. Appellant 

stopped work on May 13, 2019. 

In a May 13, 2019 statement, appellant explained that on May 7, 2019 she came into the 

Hudson Post Office to get her new schedule. As she was walking out the double doors K.B., 

appellant’s coworker, came through the doors with a loaded cart and rammed the door into her 

shoulder. Appellant immediately grabbed her shoulder and stated that she could not respond to 

K.B.’s apology because the impact took her breath away. She identified K.W., another coworker, 

as a witness to the incident. In a separate statement of even date, appellant reiterated that on May 8, 

2019 K.B. came through the double doors with a cart and hit her right shoulder with the door. 4 

She noted that she had pain in her right arm and right shoulder blade down to her fingers.

In a May 13, 2019 medical note, Dr. Eric Smith, Board-certified in emergency medicine, 

diagnosed calcific tendinitis of the right shoulder and prescribed a medication to treat appellant’s 

condition. In a separate medical note of even date, he requested that she remain off work for the 

remainder of the week.

In a May 14, 2019 statement, K.W. explained that he did not personally witness the alleged 

incident within the week of May 6 to 10, 2019, but he did hear a commotion in the foyer. He heard 

K.B. apologize to appellant for hitting her with the door. Appellant did not immediately respond,

but eventually told K.B. to go ahead and go through the doors. He then left the building. 

In a May 14, 2019 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Howard Merritt, Board-certified 

in emergency medicine, diagnosed a right shoulder contusion and underlying calcific tendinitis

caused when a swinging door hit appellant’s shoulder. He opined that she was not capable of 

performing her regular work duties and advised that she not resume work.

 

4 Appellant’s statement identified May 8, 2019 as the date of injury and spelled K.B.’s name with a “C,” however 

both of these appear to be typographical errors.
3

E.J., appellant’s supervisor, indicated in a May 14, 2019 statement that when appellant 

reported to work on May 13, 2019 she informed her of the alleged May 7, 2019 incident in which 

she entered the Hudson Post Office around 3:30 p.m. to review her work schedule and her shoulder 

was hit when K.B. came through the swinging doors. E.J. indicated that appellant was off the 

clock at the time she came to review her schedule. Appellant explained to E.J. that she did not 

immediately report the incident because her shoulder did not start hurting until May 13, 2019. She 

initially stated that she did not want to seek medical attention, but later called her supervisor and 

changed her mind. E.J. noted that appellant stopped her route and visited the emergency room 

where a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan was performed and indicated that no further 

damage of her right shoulder was found.

Appellant also submitted an undated occupational injury/illness status report with an 

illegible signature diagnosing right shoulder pain caused when a door opened and hit her right 

shoulder.

In a development letter dated May 15, 2019, OWCP 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 factual questionnaire for her completion. In a separate development letter 

dated May 16, 2019, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide additional 

information regarding appellant’s occupational disease claim, including comments from a 

knowledgeable supervisor regarding the accuracy of appellant’s statements. It afforded both 

parties 30 days to respond.

In response, appellant submitted a May 21, 2019 statement in which she insisted that she 

was required to go into the office5to review her schedule and explained that she did not call to 

review her schedule because the schedule often changes with no communication. She clarified 

that the employment incident occurred on May 7 and not May 8, 2019 and described the immediate 

effects of her injury as extreme pain on impact that eventually settled down with movement.

Appellant continued to submit medical evidence. In a May 16, 2019 diagnostic report, she

underwent an x-ray of her right shoulder which found calcific tendinitis of the right shoulder. The 

report noted no acute fracture or dislocation and ruled out a small rotator cuff tear. 

In a May 16, 2019 progress note, Dr. Riccardo Giovannone, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, reviewed the history of appellant’s injury in which someone came through the double 

doors at work with a cart and jerked her arm back and diagnosed bilateral shoulder pain. In a 

medical note of even date, he diagnosed calcific tendinitis of the right shoulder and acute pain of 

the right shoulder and referred appellant to physical therapy. In a separate May 16, 2019 medical 

note, Dr. Giovannone recommended that appellant remain out of work until after being reevaluated 

on June 15, 2019.

Appellant submitted physical therapy notes dated from May 21 to June 13, 2019 in which 

Marilyn Rendel, a physical therapist, provided notes pertaining to appellant’s treatment for her 

 

5

 The record indicates that Hudson Post Office is the main branch covering the Clayton, Pittsford, and Waldron 

branches. Appellant was scheduled to work fromone of the smaller branches on May7, 2019. She was injured when 

checking her work schedule at the Hudson Post Office (main branch) that afternoon.
4

calcific tendinitis of the right shoulder, acute pain of the right shoulder and stiffness of the right 

shoulder.

In a June 5, 2019 statement, appellant explained that she reported to the Hudson office 

every week for over a year in order to check her schedule for changes, make copies of her schedule,

and report her time worked to her supervisors. She asserted that she has called multiple times to 

see if her schedule could be texted or e-mailed to her, but it had never been done before. Appellant 

indicated that the schedules are also posted in other offices, but the updates are never 

communicated or posted in those offices. She provided examples of times her schedule changed 

without notice and described the communication in the Hudson office as extremely poor and 

therefore, she often went in to the Hudson office to check the schedule herself. Appellant noted 

that she has come into the office while she was off the clock for several years, with management 

knowing, to check for new schedules and changes to her existing schedules and asserted that she 

had never been told to not do so. In a separate statement of even date, she again detailed the events 

of the alleged May 7, 2019 employment incident.

In a June 6, 2019 statement, G.O., appellant’s postmaster, asserted that appellant was not 

required to come into the office to review her schedule on May 7, 2019 and explained the rules by 

which the schedules are normally posted. She controverted appellant’s claim stating that appellant 

changed her explanation of the alleged employment incident three times and provided that upon 

investigation she could not duplicate the door hitting her in the shoulder the way appellant 

explained. G.O. asked appellant why she would use her right shoulder to open the door when she 

had a preexisting condition of calcific tendinitis and appellant could provide no explanation. On 

June 5, 2019 appellant came into the office and informed another supervisor that she had been 

thinking it over and reasoned that she must have been using her extended right arm to open the

door when it was pushed back on to her by the other carrier. G.O. detailed a May 13, 2019 

conversation appellant had with another supervisor where she stated that she had already been 

receiving shots for her calcific tendinitis for the past year and that she could not afford a $2,000.00 

deductible to get surgery on her shoulder. She also provided that she did not sign off on a 

Form CA-1 because appellant was not on the clock when her injury occurred. 

In a June 10, 2019 statement, F.B., an RCA at the Pittsford Post Office, stated that at no 

point during orientation did a supervisor or postmaster state that carriers could not come into the 

office while they were off the clock for safety reasons. He provided that he had gone into the post 

office several times to take care of paperwork and for other reasons. 

In another June 10, 2019 statement, P.K., appellant’s coworker, stated that she had 

witnessed employees come into the Hudson Post Office while they were off the clock and that she 

herself had never been told not to do so.

In a June 12, 2019 statement, B.B., an employee at the Pittsford Post Office, asserted that 

in his 21 years of working at that post office no one had ever told him not to come in on his day 

off until appellant’s alleged incident occurred. He indicated that he would start letting the rural 

carriers know to call in and noted that there was a lack of communication in the Hudson Post 

Office. 

In a separate June 12, 2019 statement, L.T., a clerk at the Pittsford Post Office, noted that 

it was common for rural carriers to periodically check the schedule at the Hudson office as it was 

often updated. The statement noted that in order for the rural carriers to stay on top of their work 
5

it was sometimes necessary for them to stop by in the Hudson office before or after their shift so 

they could better plan for their next day of work. During the week of May 6, 2019 the schedules 

were changed several times and it was confusing as there was a lack of communication from the 

Hudson office.

In a June 13, 2019 statement, S.J., a clerk of the Hudson Post Office, indicated that work 

schedules are posted in all four offices at the close of business every Wednesday. She claimed 

that she had texted pictures of the schedules to carriers in the past so that they would not have to 

come all the way into the Hudson office to view it. S.J. also asserted that she was told by 

management that it was the employees’ responsibility to come in and check the schedules 

themselves. She agreed that a lack of communication does occur frequently in the Hudson office 

and reasoned that there were instances where management has changed the schedule and she did 

not receive a communication about it. 

In a June 14, 2019 Form CA-17, Dr. Giovannone diagnosed a small rotator cuff tear of the 

right shoulder and calcific tendinitis due to the alleged May 7, 2019 employment incident and 

provided work restrictions for appellant to follow. In a medical note of even date, he opined that 

appellant could return to work on June 17, 2019 with no repetitive use of her upper extremity.

In a June 20, 2019 statement, G.O., appellant’s postmaster, claimed that on May 7, 2019 

appellant finished her shift at 2:50 p.m. and was definitely off the clock at 3:30 p.m. when her 

alleged injury occurred and attached a time-keeping record in confirming. She controverted 

appellant’s statement, contending that she was not required to come into the office to copy her 

schedule and did so at her own preference. G.O. reviewed the post office scheduling procedure in 

which new schedules for the week are posted in each office every Wednesday. She asserted that 

management was not required to text or e-mail schedules to employees. G.O. explained that 

appellant’s position as an RCA meant that her schedule was flexible and would be changed on 

occasion when a regular carrier is sick or requests leave from work. She claimed that when

schedule changes occur she or a supervisor will personally call an RCA to inform them of the 

change and stated that she had not received a complaint from any other RCA about difficulties in 

obtaining the schedule or a lack of communication. G.O. challenged appellant’s actions reasoning 

that her current schedule had been posted since May 1, 2019 and had not been changed and, 

therefore, asserted that she could have checked her schedule at any point. She also attached emails dated April 30 and May 5, 2019 demonstrating that she provided the schedules for the 

following weeks to the other post offices in advance. 

In a June 26, 2019 medical note, Dr. Giovannone provided his updated suggestions for 

appellant’s work restrictions. 

By decision dated June 28, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that her injury arose during the course of 

employment and within the scope of compensable work factors. It explained that she was off the 

clock when the May 7, 2019 employment incident occurred. 

OWCP continued to receive evidence. Appellant submitted a May 22, 2019 physical 

therapy report from Ms. Rendel detailing her continued treatment for her calcific tendinitis of the 

right shoulder, acute pain of the right shoulder and stiffness of the right shoulder. 
6

In a June 14, 2019 progress note, Dr. Giovannone provided an update on appellant’s right 

shoulder as it related to her calcific tendinitis and recent reinjury. She informed him that an 

injection she received on May 16, 2019 helped along with physical therapy. Dr. Giovannone

diagnosed calcific tendinitis and bilateral shoulder pain. 

In a June 25, 2019 e-mail, G.O. clarified the structure of the RCA’s duties as it pertained 

to their work assignments to one of three remote offices. She controverted appellant’s injury 

reasoning that it did not occur at the employing establishment because she was at a remote post 

office and she was off the clock. G.O. stated that appellant was not required to come into the 

Hudson office at all because her schedule had not been updated. 

On an August 23, 2019 appeal request form received by OWCP on September 25, 2019 

appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s June 28, 2019 decision. 

In a May 1, 2019 medical report, Dr. Giovannone evaluated appellant for intermittent pain 

she experienced in her shoulders over the years, especially in the right shoulder. He referred to an 

April 30, 2019 x-ray of her right and left shoulders and diagnosed bilateral shoulders calcific 

tendinitis. 

In a July 11, 2019 medical note, Dr. Giovannone requested that appellant be excused from 

work until she is reevaluated on July 17, 2019. In a July 17, 2019 progress note, he noted that 

appellant was not working because the employing establishment could not comply with her work 

restrictions. Appellant informed Dr. Giovannone that she still experienced pain in her right 

shoulder every once and a while. Dr. Giovannone diagnosed calcific tendinitis of the right 

shoulder and right rotator cuff tendinitis. In a medical note of even date, he suggested that 

appellant return to work beginning July 22, 2019 with no restrictions on a trial basis.

In three medical notes dated July 23, 2019, Dr. Giovannone recounted the May 7, 2019 

injury in which appellant injured her right shoulder when a door impacted it and caused trauma 

and immobility. He stated that she was off work from May 13 to July 17, 2019 and was released 

to work with no restrictions after her shoulder showed full range of motion.

By decision dated December 19, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its June 28, 2019 

decision.

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,6that 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 

 

6

S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).
7

to the employment injury.7 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.8

FECA provides for the payment of compensation for “the disability or death of an 

employee resulting from personal injury sustained while in the performance of duty.”

9

 The phrase 

“sustained while in the performance of duty” has been interpreted by the Board to be the equivalent 

of the commonly found prerequisite in workers’ compensation law of “arising out of and in the 

course of employment.”

10

 The phrase “in the course of employment” is recognized as relating to 

the work situation, and more particularly, relating to elements of time, place, and circumstance.

To arise in the course of employment, an injury must occur at a time when the employee may 

reasonably be stated to be engaged in the master’s business, at a place where the employee may 

reasonably be expected to be in connection with the employment, and while he or she was 

reasonably fulfilling the duties of his or her employment or engaged in doing something incidental 

thereto.11 In deciding whether an injury is covered by FECA, the test is whether, under all the 

circumstances presented, causal relationship exists between the employment itself, or the 

conditions under which it is required to be performed, and the resultant injury.12

Injuries arising on the employing establishment’s premises may be approved if the claimant 

was engaged in activity reasonably incidental to his or her employment.13 The course of 

employment for employees having a fixed time and place of work includes a reasonable interval 

before and after official working hours while the employee is on the premises engaged in 

preparatory or incidental acts.14

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has established that an incident occurred in the performance 

of duty on May 7, 2019, as alleged.

As previously noted, to arise in the course of employment, an injury must occur at a time 

when the employee may reasonably be stated to be engaged in the master’s business, at a place 

where the employee may reasonably be expected to be in connection with the employment, and 

 

7

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

ECAB 312 (1988).

8 K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

9

5 U.S.C. § 8102(a).

10 See M.T., Docket No. 17-1695 (issued May 15, 2018); S.F., Docket No. 09-2172 (issued August23, 2010); 

Charles Crawford, 40 ECAB 474, 476-77 (1989).

11 See M.T., id.; Mary Keszler, 38 ECAB 735, 739 (1987).

12 J.N., Docket No. 19-0045 (issued June 3, 2019); M.W., Docket No. 15-0474 (issued September 20, 2016); Mark 

Love, 52 ECAB 490 (2001).

13 A.P., Docket No. 18-0886 (issued November 16, 2018); S.M., Docket No. 16-0875 (issued December 12, 2017);

J.O., Docket No. 16-0636 (issued October 18, 2016); T.L., 59 ECAB 537 (2008). See also Federal (FECA) Procedure 

Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Performance of Duty,Chapter 2.804.4a(2) (August 1992).

14 See J.K., Docket No. 17-0756 (issued July 11, 2018).
8

while she was reasonably fulfilling the duties of her employment or engaged in doing something 

incidental thereto.15

Herein, the record reflects that on May 7, 2019 appellant’s shift at a branch post office

ended at 2:50 p.m. and she entered the Hudson Post Office at 3:30 p.m. in order to check her 

schedule for the following day. She asserted in statements dated May 21 and June 5, 2019 that she 

had been coming into the main (Hudson) post office after hours with management’s knowledge in 

order to check her schedule for the past year. Appellant explained that she had requested multiple

times that any updates to her schedule be e-mailed or texted to her, but she had never received 

them and also that the Hudson Post Office often changed the schedules without communicating 

the changes to its employees. Appellant also contended that she had never been told not to come 

to the main (Hudson) post office on days when she was not scheduled to work there.

Appellant also submitted multiple statements from coworkers supporting her allegations.

The Board finds that on May 7, 2019 when appellant arrived at the Hudson Post Office 

after her work shift, she was engaged in a preparatory and/or incidental act, and was thus in the 

performance of duty. As stated above, the Board has held that the course of employment for 

employees having a fixed time and place of work includes a reasonable interval before and after 

official working hours while the employee is on the premises engaged in preparatory or incidental 

acts.16 Here, appellant arrived to check her schedule only 40 minutes after the end of her shift in 

order to review her work schedule for her next shift. Additionally, she submitted multiple 

statements demonstrating that it was important for employees to come in and check their schedules 

in person in order to stay on top of their work due to a lack of communication from the Hudson 

Post Office and the frequency with which work schedules are updated. The Board thus finds that 

appellant has established that she was in the performance of duty at the time of the May 7, 2019 

employment injury.

As appellant has established that the May 7, 2019 employment incident factually occurred, 

the question becomes whether this accepted employment incident caused an injury.17 The Board 

will, therefore, set aside OWCP’s December 19, 2019 decision and remand the case to OWCP for 

consideration of the medical evidence. Following this and other such further development as 

deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision addressing whether appellant has met her 

burden of proof to establish an injury causally related to the accepted employment incident.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that an incident 

occurred in the performance of duty on May 7, 2019, as alleged. The Board further finds that this 

case is not in posture for decision with regard to whether she sustained an injury causally related 

to the accepted May 7, 2019 employment incident.

 

15 Supra note 11.

16 Supra note 14.

17 M.L., Docket No., 19-0361 (issued October 24, 2019); Willie J. Clements, 43 ECAB 244 (1991).
9

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 19, 2019 decision of the Office of 

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

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: September 16, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board