United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BIRMINGHAM POST 

OFFICE, Birmingham, AL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0325

Issued: November 5, 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 January 4, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 4, 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 over 

the merits of this case.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant sustained a medical condition causally related to the 

accepted November 13, 2020 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the January4, 2021decision, 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 November 16, 2020 appellant, then a 34-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 13, 2020 she sustained five dog 

bites to the left leg and thigh while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on the date of 

injury. On the reverse side of the claim form, appellant’s supervisor certified that the information 

provided by appellant on the form was true to the best of her knowledge and acknowledged that 

appellant was injured in the performance of duty. 

In a narrative statement dated November 13, 2020, appellant noted that, on that date, she 

arrived at the driveway of a residence to deliver a package. When she went to place the packages, 

two large dogs attacked her, stopping only when the owner emerged from the residence. 

In a development letter dated November 25, 2020, OWCP advised appellant that additional 

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

medical evidence necessary to establish her claim and afforded her 30 days to respond. 

In a note dated November 17, 2020, Dr. Stanley Barnes, a family medicine specialist, 

diagnosed dog bite wounds, stating that appellant sustained it while on her mail route. He 

recommended that she be excused from work from November 13 through December 21, 2020. 

In a letter dated November 20, 2020, the employing establishment requested that

Dr. Barnes provide medical rationale for his recommendation that appellant be excused from work 

November 13 through December 21, 2020. An unsigned and undated response diagnosed dog bite 

woundsto the thigh and buttock, which required multiple dressing changes and which would make 

it difficult to sit, stand, or walk due to extension of the wound and pain. 

On November 17, 2020 the employing establishment executed an authorization for 

examination and/or treatment (Form CA-16). P.B., the authorizing official, described appellant’s 

injury as dog bites to the thigh, upper leg, and upper back. The portion of the form designated as 

Part B - Attending Physician’s Report was signed on November 24, 2020 by Dr. Barnes. 

Dr. Barnes diagnosed dog bite wounds to the left thigh and buttock and provided the International 

Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD) code for this diagnosis. He checked a box marked 

“Yes” indicating his belief that the diagnosed condition was caused by the incident of 

November 13, 2020. Dr. Barnes recommended that appellant remain off work until December 21, 

2020, after which she could return to regular duties. He explained that she needed this time off for 

treatment including multiple bandage changes. 

By decision dated December 28, 2020, OWCP accepted that the November 13, 2020 

employment incident had occurred, as alleged. It denied the claim, however, as the evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted 

employment incident and thus, the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined 

by FECA. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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,4that 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.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

In order to determine whether an employee actually sustained an injury in the performance 

of duty, OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Generally, 

fact of injury consists of two components which must be considered in conjunction with one 

another. The first component to be established is that the employee actually experienced the 

employment incident which is alleged to have occurred.7 The second component is whether the 

employment incident caused a personal injury and generally can be established only by medical 

evidence.8

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.9 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 disability, and the specific employment incident identified by the claimant.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a dog bite due to

the accepted November 13, 2020 employment incident. The Board also finds that the case is not 

3

Supra note 1.

4

S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

5

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

ECAB 312 (1988).

6 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).

7

Id.; Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

8 K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019). See Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354, 356-57 (1989).

9 M.S., Docket No. 19-1096 (issued November 12, 2019); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

10 R.S., Docket No. 19-1484 (issued January 13, 2020); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).
4

in posture as to whether she sustained disability causally related to the accepted employment 

injury. 

OWCP accepted that the incident of November 13, 2020 occurred as alleged. On 

November 17, 2020 the employing establishment executed Form CA-16 in which the authorizing 

official, P.B., described appellant’s injury as a dog bite to the thigh, upper leg, and upper back. 

The portion of the form designated as Part B -- Attending Physician’s Report was signed on 

November 24, 2020 by Dr. Barnes. Dr. Barnes diagnosed dog bite wounds to the left thigh and 

buttock and provided the ICD code for this diagnosis. In a note dated November 17, 2020, he

diagnosed dog bite wounds, stating that appellant sustained it while on her mail route.

The record establishes that appellant submitted medical evidence from Dr. Barnes 

containing a dog bite diagnosis in connection with her claim.11 OWCP’s procedures provide that, 

if a condition reported is a minor one, such as a burn, laceration, insect sting, or animal bite, which 

can be identified on visual inspection by a lay person, a case may be accepted even without a 

medical report.12 As the evidence of record establishes diagnosed visible injuries, the Board finds 

that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish dog bite wounds causally related to the 

accepted November 13, 2020 employment incident.13 Appellant has established an injury in the 

performance of duty. 

The case will therefore be remanded for payment of medical expenses for appellant’s 

diagnosed dog bite, to be followed by a de novo decision regarding any attendant disability. 

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained 

a dog bite in the performance of duty on November 13, 2020. 

11 See S.A., Docket No. 20-1498 (issued March 11, 2021); A.H., Docket No. 20-0730 (issued October 27, 2020); 

B.C., Docket No. 20-0079 (issued October 16, 2020).

12 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Development of Claims, Chapter 2.800.6(a) 

(June 2011); id. at Chapter 2.805.3(c) (January 2013). See also A.J., Docket No. 20-0484 (issued September 2, 2020).

13 See R.H., Docket No. 20-1684 (issued August 27, 2021).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 28, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed 

Issued: November 5, 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