United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, WARNER ROBINS 

POST OFFICE, Warner Robins, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0712

Issued: November 10, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 11, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 13, 2020 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 her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 7, 2019 appellant, then a 58-year-old rural carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she experienced lower right leg pain due to factors of her 

federal employment. She indicated that she felt pain when carrying packages to a customer’s door,

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

and the pain worsened as the day continued. Appellant noted that she first became aware of her 

condition and first realized its relation to factors of her federal employment on August 28, 2019. 

She stopped work on September 6, 2019.

In a September 7, 2019 medical note, Jonathan Kent, a certified nurse practitioner, 

provided work restrictions pending results from a bone scan. A bone scan report of even date, 

performed by Dr. Timothy R. Stapleton, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, demonstrated

anterior shin splints.

In a September 18, 2019 medical note, Dr. Stapleton diagnosed right tibial stress fracture 

and advised appellant to remain off work.

In a September 26, 2019 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit 

additional evidence in support of her claim, including a physician’s opinion supported by a medical 

explanation as to how her work activities caused, contributed to, or aggravated her claimed medical 

condition. It also enclosed a questionnaire for her completion which posed various questions 

regarding her work duties. In a separate development letter of even date, OWCP also requested 

that the employing establishment provide additional information, including comments from a 

knowledgeable supervisor on the accuracy of appellant’s statements and a copy of an official 

position description. It afforded both parties 30 days to provide the requested evidence.

In a September 7, 2019 medical report, Mr. Kent noted that appellant typically walked six 

to eight miles per day for her work. He reported that appellant developed right anterior lower leg 

pain in the distal third of the lower leg. Mr. Kent noted that her pain was initially worse with 

flexion and extension of the foot, but was getting progressively worse since August 20, 2019. He 

diagnosed shin splints and tibialis anterior tendinitis.

A September 11, 2019 bone scan report by Dr. L. Daniel Strawn, a Board-certified 

radiologist, demonstrated a subtle area of asymmetric tracer accumulation in the lower right 

anterior leg. Dr. Strawn noted that the uptake on the bone scan report appeared to be more likely 

in the lower anterior leg soft tissues than the tibia itself. 

In a September 18, 2019 medical report, Dr. Stapleton indicated that he had not seen 

appellant following a right knee arthroscopy in 2018. He noted that she reported that she began 

experiencing pain in her right shin area since approximately August 20, 2019, and that she was no 

longer able to walk six to eight miles a day that she typically walked. Dr. Stapleton diagnosed 

right tibial stress fracture and ordered physical therapy. He indicated that appellant’s lower leg 

condition was work related.

The employing establishment, in an October 1, 2019 letter, controverted appellant’s claim 

asserting that her injury occurred outside of the employing establishment as she provided no 

medical documentation stating that her injury occurred on the job and failed to notify her 

supervisor of her injury for 11 days. It further noted that she also had not provided a time and 

place of her injury.

In an October 2, 2019 medical report, Steven Kelham, a certified physician assistant, noted 

that appellant returned for a follow-up for right lower leg pain. He indicated that appellant 

performed a lot of physical labor for her work, including walking 6 to 10 miles each day, lifting 
3

heavy boxes, and loading trucks. Mr. Kelham noted that appellant was off work since 

September 7, 2019. He diagnosed right lower leg stress fracture.

In an October 2, 2019 medical note, Dr. Stapleton again diagnosed right tibial stress 

fracture and advised that appellant could return to work on October 7, 2019. In an attending 

physician’s report (Form CA-20) of even date, he again diagnosed right tibial stress fracture and 

placed appellant on light-duty work. Dr. Stapleton noted the date of injury as August 28, 2019 

and checked a box marked “Yes” indicating that her diagnosed condition was work related. In a 

duty status report (Form CA-17) of even date, he reported that appellant noticed pain in her lower 

right leg while carrying packages from her truck to a door. Dr. Stapleton again diagnosed right 

tibial stress fracture and advised that appellant could return to work on October 7, 2019 with 

restrictions.

In an October 4, 2019 response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, appellant indicated 

that the factors of her employment that she believed contributed to her condition included 

repeatedly squatting and lifting heavy packages, climbing in and out of a long life vehicle (LLV) 

to load packages, as well as, walking up to 50 pounds of packages from her LLV to a door of 

business or homes on uneven surfaces. She explained that she loaded and unloaded, and then 

walked with packages for approximately three hours per day, performing about 160 dismounts 

each day, which required constantly stepping down from and back into her LLV. Appellant noted 

that she often walked on uneven surfaces for at least one hour every day. She further explained 

that her only activities outside of her work were volunteering at a fellowship for a clerical work, 

light house cleaning, and cooking. 

In an October 9, 2019 medical report, Dr. Stapleton indicated that appellant was still 

recovering from her right tibial stress fracture and repeated that appellant’s condition was work

related. He noted that appellant had walked between 6 to 10 miles per day while working at the 

employing establishment. Dr. Stapleton explained that right tibial stress fracture typically took a 

long time to heal, noting that her preexisting intra-articular damage from 2013 might have slowed 

down her recovery. He additionally diagnosed pain in lower limb. In a medical note of even date,

Dr. Stapleton further diagnosed pain in the right leg and indicated that appellant could return to 

work on October 23, 2019 without restrictions. 

In an undated statement, appellant’s supervisor, B.D., indicated that she conducted an 

investigative interview with appellant on September 7, 2019. During this interview, appellant 

alleged that she started experiencing pain in her right lower leg while she was carrying packages 

on August 28, 2019. B.D. noted that appellant waited days before reporting her injury and failed 

to respond to several questions including, “how, when, where, and what had happened to her leg.” 

She indicated that appellant had explained that her injury was not a result of an accident, but rather 

was an occupational injury caused by work on uneven surfaces and stress over time. B.D. noted 

that appellant continued to work for 11 days following the development of her condition without 

reporting her injury. She claimed in conclusion that appellant was not injured on the job, but 

instead injured herself outside of the employing establishment. 

On October 11, 2019 the employing establishment submitted a rural carrier position 

description, which included: sorting, receiving, and signing for mail; loading mail in a vehicle;
4

delivering mail to customers along a prescribed route and on a regular schedule by a vehicle; and 

picking up mail from customers’ roadside boxes.

By decision dated January 13, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the alleged events occurred as 

described or that she sustained a diagnosed medical condition. 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 FECA2 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,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

OWCP’s regulations define an occupational disease as a condition produced by the work 

environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.6 To establish that an injury was 

sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational disease claim, a claimant must submit: 

(1) a factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the 

presence or occurrence of the disease or condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence 

or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical 

evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the identified employment 

factors.7

The employee’s burden of proof includes the submission of a detailed description of the 

employment factors or conditions, which he or she believes caused or adversely affected a 

condition for which compensation is claimed.8

 

2 Supra note 1.

3 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

4 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).

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

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

6 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q).

7 S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).

8 T.W., Docket No. 18-0788 (issued July 22, 2019); J.C., Docket No. 16-1663 (issued January 18, 2017); Lori A. 

Facey, 55 ECAB 217 (2004).
5

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish fact of injury. 

Appellant claimed that she developed a lower right leg condition due to performing 

repetitive work duties. She asserted that her duties included repeatedly squatting and lifting heavy 

packages, climbing in and out of an LLV to load packages, as well as, carrying packages weighing 

up to 50 pounds from her LLV on uneven surfaces. Appellant contended that she performed her 

work duties for many hours every day, performing about 160 dismounts per day. Although she 

reported to her supervisor that she first noticed pain in her lower right leg while carrying packages 

on August 28, 2019, she explained that her injury was not traumatic, but rather an occupational 

injury being caused by walking on uneven surfaces and stress over time. 

The Board finds that the evidence of record is sufficient to establish that appellant’s work 

duties included repeatedly lifting heavy packages, loading and unloading an LLV, and walking on 

uneven surfaces to deliver packages, as well as picking up mail or packages from customers’

roadside boxes. The Board notes that she was consistent in reporting the essential nature of her 

work duties and the employing establishment has not disputed her description of the type of duties 

she performed, but rather disputed whether she sustained a traumatic injury while in the 

performance of her duty. The Board has held that an employee’s statement alleging that an injury 

occurred at a given time and in a given manner is of great probative value and will stand unless 

refuted by strong or persuasive evidence.9 The employing establishment presented evidence 

showing that appellant did, in fact, perform the types of job tasks as alleged, albeit not to the same 

extent as alleged. Therefore, the Board finds that appellant’s allegations regarding the nature of 

her work duties have not been refuted by strong or persuasive evidence and there are no 

inconsistencies sufficient to cast serious doubt on the type of duties she alleged she performed.10

The Board further finds that appellant has submitted sufficient medical evidence to 

establish a medical diagnosis in connection with her alleged employment injury. In a series of 

medical reports Dr. Stapleton diagnosed a tibial stress fracture in connection with appellant’s 

claimed employment injury. The case record also demonstrates diagnoses shin splints and tibialis 

anterior tendinitis. 

Therefore, the case shall be remanded to OWCP to determine whether there is causal 

relationship between the accepted factors of her federal employment and the diagnosed medical 

conditions.

11

 After this and other such further development as may be deemed necessary, OWCP 

shall issue a de novo decision on the merits of this claim.

 

9 See V.J., Docket No. 19-1600 (issued March 13, 2020); Allen C. Hundley, 53 ECAB 551 (2002).

10 See generally J.T., Docket No. 18-1170 (issued May 19, 2020); T.A., Docket No. 19-1525 (issued March 4, 2020); 

J.C., Docket No. 18-1803 (issued April 19, 2019); L.S., Docket No. 13-1742 (issued August 7, 2014). 

11 T.A., id.
6

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish fact of injury, but 

that the case is not in posture for decision on the issue of causal relationship. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 13, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed in part and set aside in part and the case is remanded 

for further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: November 10, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board