United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Macomb, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0228

Issued: August 2, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 29, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 15, 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.

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 August 31, 2021 appellant, then a 45-year-old rural carrier associate, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed right tennis elbow and carpal

tunnel due to factors of her federal employment. She specifically noted repetitively flexing, 

gripping, and slinging mail. Appellant indicated that she first became aware of the condition on 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

October 8, 2020 and realized its relationship to her federal employment on June 21, 2021. She 

stopped work on September 7, 2021. 

An authorization for examination and/or treatment (Form CA-16) dated and signed by 

appellant’s supervisor on July 19, 2021 authorized an examination of appellant for complaints of 

right elbow pain. In an attending physician’s report, Part B of the Form CA-16, also dated July 19, 

2021, an unknown provider with an illegible signature indicated that appellant had developed 

carpal tunnel in the right upper limb and that the condition was caused or aggravated by her 

described employment activity. 

In a development letter dated September 15, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim. It advised her of the type of evidence necessary to establish her claim 

and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the 

necessary information. 

On September 22, 2021 OWCP received an undated narrative report by Dr. Farzin Namei, 

a family medicine specialist, who recounted that he treated appellant for right wrist carpal tunnel 

syndrome and medial epicondylitis. Dr. Namei indicated that appellant’s work activities, such as 

“repetitive use, heavy lifting, reaching, pulling for an extended amount of time,” were not helping 

appellant’s symptoms and opined that it was possible that she injured her elbow at work.

By decision dated November 15, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish the alleged factors of 

employment. 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

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

Id.

3 D.D., Docket No. 19-1715 (issued December 3, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 

59 ECAB 178 (2007); JoeD. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

4 Y.G., Docket No. 20-0688 (issued November 13, 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).

5 C.H., Docket No. 19-1781 (issued November 13, 2020); 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). 
3

(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 employment factors identified by the claimant.6 

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

On her claim form appellant alleged thatshe developed right tennis elbow and carpal tunnel 

due to her employment activities. She specifically described activities of repetitively flexing, 

gripping, and slinging mail. Appellant also submitted a narrative report by Dr. Namei who noted 

appellant’s work activities as repetitive use, heavy lifting, reaching, and pulling for an extended 

amount of time. By decision dated November 15, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding 

that she had failed to establish that the employment factors occurred, as alleged.

OWCP’s procedures provide that a description of job duties will almost always be required 

to adjudicate an occupational disease claim.7 It further notes that a claimant should usually be 

asked to describe the physical and environmental requirements of the job, and the supervisor or 

injury compensation specialist should review that statement and provide comments if there is any 

disagreement.8 While OWCP advised appellant of the type of evidence necessary to establish her 

claim, it did not request any information from the employing establishment regarding the accuracy 

of appellant’s contention that her position as a rural carrier associate involved repetitive lifting, 

gripping, reaching, and pulling. For this reason, the Board finds that the case must be remanded 

for further development of the factual evidence.9 

It is well established that proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and while 

the claimant has the responsibility to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares 

responsibility in the development of the evidence, particularly when such evidence is of the 

character normally obtained from the employing establishment.10 OWCP has an obligation to see 

that justice is done.11 

6 T.M., Docket No. 20-0712 (issued November 10, 2020); S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); R.H., 

59 ECAB 382 (2008).

7 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Development of Claims, Chapter 2.800.7(b)(2). 

(June 2011)

8

Id. 

9

See J.Q., Docket No. 21-1284 (issued March 22, 2022) (case was remanded for OWCP to obtain a detailed 

description from the employing establishment about the claimant’s position as customs inspector); see also D.C., 

Docket No. 21-0231 (issued August 27, 2021); (case was remanded because the employing establishment did not 

provide a detailed statement indicating whether it concurred with the claimant’s allegations).

10 D.O., Docket No. 20-0006 (issued September 9, 2020); R.A., Docket No. 17-1030 (issued April 16, 2018); 

Walter A. Fundinger, Jr., 37 ECAB 200, 204 (1985).

11 S.S., Docket No. 18-0397 (issued January 15, 2019); Donald R. Gervasi, 57 ECAB 281, 286 (2005); WilliamJ. 

Cantrell, 34 ECAB 1233, 1237 (1983).
4

On remand OWCP should obtain a detailed statement from the employing establishment 

indicating whether it concurred with appellant’s allegations and a position description for a rural 

carrier associate. If the employing establishment fails to respond to a request for comments on 

appellant’s allegations, OWCP’s claims examiner may accept the statements as factual.12 After 

this, and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo 

decision. 

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 15, 2021 merit 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: August 2, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

12 Supra note 7 at Chapter 2.800.5(d)(1) (June 2011). See also L.B., Docket No. 17-1671 (issued 

November 6, 2018).