United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Philadelphia, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0932

Issued: February 10, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 1, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 7, 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 has met her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the April7, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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 January 19, 2021 appellant, then a 42-year-old sales clerk and distribution associate, 

filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed back and bilateral 

foot pain due to factors of her federal employment, including prolonged standing repetitive

bending and dragging. She noted that she first became aware of her condition and realized its 

relation to her federal employment on October 3, 2020. Appellant did not stop work.

In a form report dated December 2, 2020, Dr. David Stolzenberg, a physical medicine,

rehabilitation, and pain management specialist, diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy and lumbar 

spondylolisthesis. He advised that appellant was unable to repetitively sit, stand, bend, or twist 

and should not lift over 10 pounds.

In a development letter dated February 1, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed,

including a detailed factual description of the alleged employment factors, and provided a 

questionnaire for her completion. In a separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested 

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

knowledgeable supervisor and an explanation of appellant’s work activities. It afforded both 

parties 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

OWCP thereafter received an October 28, 2020 note from Dr. Stolzenberg, who provided 

restrictions allowing appellant to alternate sitting and standing hourly. In a referral form of even 

date, Dr. Stolzenberg prescribed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan studies of her lumbar 

spine.

In a February 4, 2021 response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, J.W., an employing 

establishment supervisor, indicated that appellant’s job duties had not changed in years which 

required her primarily to work on her feet. He noted that there had been no recent changes in her 

duties, and that her duties included distributing parcels, lifting trays, moving equipment around on 

wheels, and servicing customers at the window with transactions involving small parcels, flats, 

and books of stamps. In addition, J.W., related that the office had a pallet lift to minimize constant 

bending, and that employees received a lunch break and rest breaks between customers. He 

attached a position description for a sales and service associate listing appellant’s employment 

duties, and identified various tasks which she did not perform.

OWCP also received a request for a temporary light-duty assignment dated March 2, 2021.

By decision dated April 7, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she had not 

established the factual component of her claim, as she had not submitted additional evidence to 

substantiate her employment-related activities in response to the development letter. It concluded, 

therefore, that 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 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

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

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged.

In her Form CA-2, appellant indicated that she developed back and bilateral foot pain due 

to prolonged standing when sorting parcels and repetitive bending and dragging. OWCP, in its 

February 1, 2021 development letter, requested that she complete an attached questionnaire and 

provide a detailed factual description of the alleged employment factors. Appellant, however, did 

not respond to OWCP’s February 1, 2021 development letter or otherwise provide a factual 

statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to a medical

condition.

8

 Furthermore, Dr. Stolzenberg’s October 28, 2020 forms and February 1, 2021 letter 

do not identify any employment factors alleged to have caused the diagnosed conditions. 

3

Supra note 1.

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). 

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.W., Docket No. 20-0767 (issued January 13, 2021); L.D., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); S.C., 

Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019).

8

Id.
4

As the evidence of record is insufficient to establish that the alleged employment factors 

occurred as described, 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 an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 7, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 10, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board