United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

F.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Detroit, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1045

Issued: December 22, 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 June 30, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 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 established a diagnosed medical condition causally 

related to the accepted February 20, 2021 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the June 7, 2021 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP.

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 February 26, 2021 appellant, then a 43-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 20, 2021 she injured her right index finger when she 

slipped on an icy street while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form 

the employing establishment acknowledged that she was injured in the performance of duty.

Appellant did not stop work.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a February 22, 2021 statement, explaining that

she slipped on ice on February 20, 2021, injuring her right hand. In the note, she also detailed that 

she had informed an acting employing establishment manager that she had a doctor’s appointment 

scheduled for February 23, 2021.

Appellant also submitted a February 23, 2021 note fromDr. Neha Bhave, a Board-certified 

physician specializing in family medicine, who examined appellant and opined that she should not 

use her right hand pending evaluation by an orthopedic doctor.

OWCP received a March 1, 2021 duty status report (Form CA-17),signed by Dr. Elizabeth 

King, a Board-certified orthopedist specializing in hand surgery, indicating that appellant fell onto 

her right hand on February 20, 2021. Dr. Kingdiagnosed a right index finger metacarpophalangeal 

(MCP) sprain. In a letter of even date, she opined that appellant should not return to work until 

her right hand was evaluated by ultrasound.

A March 1, 2021 priority for assignment worksheet signed by appellant’s employing 

establishment supervisor, S.T., indicated that there was no work available for appellant within her 

medical restrictions.

A March 2, 2021 attending physician’s report, Part B of an authorization for examination 

and/or treatment (Form CA-16), Dr. King noted, regarding the history of injury, “[f]all onto right 

hand” and diagnosed an “injury of right index finger.” She checked a box marked “Yes”to indicate 

that the diagnosed condition was caused or aggravated by the reported employment activity, but 

did not provide any further explanation. Dr. King also reported that appellant was totally disabled 

from work from February 24 through March 28, 2021.

On April 28, 2021 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability for 

the period April 9 through 16, 2021.

In a development letter dated May 4, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

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

requested a narrative medical report from appellant’s treating physician, which contained a 

detailed description of findings and diagnoses, explaining how the reported work incident caused 

or aggravated her medical condition. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence. 

OWCP subsequently received a February 23, 2021 x-ray report, whichrevealedno fracture 

or dislocation in appellant’s right hand.
3

On March 5, 2021 appellant underwent a Doppler ultrasound, which revealed findings 

most consistent with a low-grade sprain of the right index finger MCP joint.

In a May 11, 2021 report, Dr. King related appellant’s history of injury, evaluation, and 

treatment. She explained that the March 5, 2021 Doppler results were “indicative of [a] sprain of 

the right index MCP joint, resulting from the fall on February 20th.” Dr. King diagnosed an injury 

of the collateral ligament of a right finger. She noted that appellant continued to experience 

persistent pain and a decreased range of motion in her dominant hand and, thus,remained unable 

to perform her job duties.

On June 7, 2021 OWCP received several documents relating to diagnoses of medical 

conditions affecting other fingers of appellant’s right hand, which predate the employment 

incident.

By decision dated June 7, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in connection 

with the accepted February 20, 2021 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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period 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 determine if an employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Fact of injury 

consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The first 

3

Supra note 1.

4

S.S., Docket No. 19-1815 (issued June26, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5 M.H., Docket No. 19-0930 (issued June 17, 2020); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 

312 (1988).

6

S.A., Docket No. 19-1221 (issued June 9, 2020);L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014);DeloresC. 

Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
4

component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that allegedly 

occurred.7 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury.8

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific 

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 9 The opinion of 

the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, 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 specific employment factors 

identified by the employee.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted February 20, 2021 employment incident.

OWCP initially denied appellant’s claim based on a failure to provide evidence of a 

medical diagnosis beyond “pain” and “injury of right index finger,” explaining that these are 

merely symptoms and are, thus, insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis. However, Dr. King 

diagnosed a right index finger MCP joint sprain in the March 1, 2021 Form CA-17 and noted, in 

her May 11, 2021 report, that the March 5, 2021 Doppler ultrasound results indicated such a sprain.

Appellant has established a diagnosis of right index finger MCP joint sprain. The Board finds that

this evidence is sufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the 

accepted February 20, 2021 employment incident.

The Board further finds, however, that the case is not in posture for decision as to whether 

the diagnosed medical condition is causally related to the accepted February 20, 2021 employment 

incident. As the medical evidence of record establishes a diagnosed medical condition, the case 

must be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence with regard to the issue of causal 

relationship. Following such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a 

de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted February 20, 2021 employment incident. The Board 

further finds that the case is not in posture for decision as to whether the diagnosed medical 

condition is causally related to the accepted February 20, 2021 employment incident.

7 R.K., Docket No. 19-0904 (issued April10, 2020); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

8 Y.D., Docket No. 19-1200 (issued April6, 2020); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

9

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020);A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April24, 2019); RobertG. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

10 T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 2020);

Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
5

ORDER

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

Compensation Programs is reversed in part and set aside in part. The case is remanded for further 

proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: December 22, 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