United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

F.V., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Irvine, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0208

Issued: July 25, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 23, 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 the case.

ISSUE

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

condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 17, 2021 appellant, then a 60-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he pulled a shoulder muscle due to factors of his federal 

employment, including closing the sliding door of his vehicle while delivering his route on 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

August 25, 2021. He explained that the door became more and more difficult to close throughout 

the day until it got stuck on the rail and he pulled a muscle in his shoulder. Appellant reported that 

he first became aware of his claimed injury and its relation to his federal employment on 

August 25, 2021.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted an August 25, 2021 statement relating that he 

pulled his shoulder while closing the sliding door of his delivery vehicle all day on 

August 24, 2021. He stated that the sliding door was the cause of his shoulder injury because it 

got stuck every time he closed it. Appellant noted that his shoulder was in pain.

In a development letter dated September 22, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence required and 

provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. No 

additional evidence was received.

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

claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis 

causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment. It concluded, therefore, that he 

had not met the requirements to establish an injury as defined under 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 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,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 the following: (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 

2

Supra note 1.

3

S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

4

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 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

condition for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the 

diagnosed condition is causally related to the identified employment factors. 6

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.7 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factor(s) must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background.8 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 appellant’s 

specific employment factor(s).9

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

To establish that he sustained an occupational disease in the performance of duty, appellant 

must submit medical evidence that establishes the presence or existence of the disease or condition 

for which compensation is claimed and that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the 

identified employment factors.10 As appellant has not submitted any medical evidence, he has not 

established a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted employment factors. 11 The Board 

thus finds that he has not met his burden of proof to establish his claim.

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 his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

6 R.G., Docket No. 19-0233 (issued July 16, 2019). See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Ruby I. 

Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).

7 T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

8 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018).

9

Id.; Victor J. Woodhams, supra note 6.

10 Supra note 6.

11 C.L., Docket No. 20-0385 (issued August5, 2020).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 15, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 25, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board