United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

N.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CURSEEN-MORRIS 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Washington, DC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1213

Issued: April 15, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 May 26, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 1, 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.2

ISSUE

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

causally related to the accepted March 9, 2020 employment incident.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. 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 evidence for the first time on appeal. Id. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 19, 2020 appellant, then a 57-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on March 9, 2020 he sprained his right ankle when he fell while 

descending porch steps in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form, the 

employing establishment indicated that he was injured in the performance of duty on 

March 9, 2020.

A March 10, 2020 return to work note by Dr. Hon-Yuen Wong, Board-certified in family 

medicine, related that appellant was seen in his office on that date and that he could not return to 

work until March 15, 2020.

In a development letter dated March 23, 2020, OWCP informed appellant that additional 

evidence was needed in support of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical 

evidence necessary and attached a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 

days to submit the requested evidence.

A March 21, 2020 letter from Dr. Wong indicated that appellant was under his care and 

could return to work on March 25, 2020 with the restriction of intermittent walking for 3 hours a 

day.

In a March 25, 2020 letter, Dr. Wong indicated that appellant was seen in his office on 

March 21, 2020. He stated that appellant should be able to return to work without restrictions on 

March 30, 2020.

A March 30, 2020 return to worksheet (Form CA-3) from the employing establishment

indicated that appellant returned to full-time regular-duty work on that date.

By decision dated May 1, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition in 

connection with the accepted March 9, 2020 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 the fact that the individual is an employee of the 

United States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was 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 

 

3 Supra note 1.

4 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 

59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).
3

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.

7

 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.8 Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.9 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the accepted employment incident must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background.10 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be 

expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical 

rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the 

specific employment incident.11

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted March 9, 2020 employment incident.

OWCP received several reports from Dr. Wong related to appellant’s ability to return to 

work. In these reports Dr. Wong did not provide a specific diagnosis, or an opinion regarding 

causal relationship. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion 

regarding the cause of an employee’s condition or disability is of no probative value on the issue 

of causal relationship.

12

 As such, this evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

 

5 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); 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 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016).

7 D.B., Docket No. 18-1348 (issued January 4, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008).

8 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

9 T.H., id.; Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

10 C.S., Docket No. 20-1354 (issued January 29, 2021); M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018).

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

12 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
4

As there was no medical evidence of record establishing a diagnosis in connection with the 

accepted March 9, 2020 employment incident, the Board finds that appellant has not established

that he sustained an injury causally related to the accepted March 9, 2020 employment incident.

13

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 and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

CONCLUSION

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

condition causally related to the accepted March 9, 2020 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 1, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 15, 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

 

13 Id.