United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.E., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CULLMAN POST 

OFFICE, Cullman, AL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0105

Issued: April 13, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 27, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 19, 2022 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 a diagnosed medical 

condition in connection with the accepted March 11, 2022 employment incident.

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the May 19, 2022 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. Appellant also 

submitted additional evidence on appeal to the Board. 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 April 7, 2022 appellant, then a 57-year-old rural delivery specialist, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on March 11, 2022 she sustained injuries to her head, neck, 

chest, right elbow, right knee, left shoulder, left arm, and abdominal area when she was involved 

in a motor vehicle incident while in the performance of duty.

In a development letter dated April 12, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary and provided a 

questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

Hospital records were received regarding appellant’s admission on March 11, 2022. 

Appellant’s complaints of neck, back, and abdominal pain were noted. An x-ray of the right knee 

obtained on March 11, 2022 demonstrated degenerative changes with no acute fracture. An x-ray 

of the right elbow obtained on the same date demonstrated minimal soft tissue swelling that may 

reflect contusion, with no fracture or joint effusion identified. A computerized tomography (CT) 

scan of the chest obtained on the same date demonstrated degenerative changes and no acute 

intrathoracic process. CT scans of the cervical spine and brain obtained on the same date 

demonstrated no acute process. 

In a report signed on March 15, 2022 Dr. Brad Moody, a Board-certified surgeon, 

diagnosed an incidental finding of peristalsis or intussusception of the left upper quadrant. In a 

discharge summary of the same date, he diagnosed findings of intussusception and abdominal pain.

A magnetic resonance imaging scan of the cervical spine obtained on March 21, 2022 

demonstrated degenerative multilevel cervical spondylosis, greatest at C5-6. An x-ray of the left 

shoulder obtained on March 25, 2022 demonstrated no acute findings. A CT scan of the abdomen 

obtained on the same date demonstrated no acute inflammatory process.

By decision dated May 19, 2022, OWCP accepted that the March 11, 2022 employment 

incident occurred, as alleged. However, it denied the claim, finding that the medical evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted 

employment incident. OWCP concluded, therefore, that appellant had not met the requirements 

to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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 

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

153 (1989).
3

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 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 

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

occurred at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.

6

 The second component is whether the 

employment incident caused a personal injury.7

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is required to establish causal relationship. The 

opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background, 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 the specific employment incident.8

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition in connection with the accepted March 11, 2022 employment incident.

In a March 15, 2022 report and a discharge summary of the same date, Dr. Moody 

diagnosed an incidental finding of peristalsis or intussusception of the left upper quadrant and 

abdominal pain. However, he noted that the diagnosis of peristalsis or intussusception was 

“incidental,” not in connection with the accepted March 11, 2022 incident. Regarding the

diagnosis of abdominal pain, the Board has held that a diagnosis of “pain” is a symptom and not a 

firm diagnosis.9 

OWCP received a March 11, 2022 x-ray report of appellant’s right elbow which indicated

minimal soft tissue swelling that may reflect contusion, with no fracture or joint effusion identified. 

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); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

6 B.P., Docket No. 16-1549 (issued January 18, 2017); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

7 M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8 M.O., Docket No. 19-1398 (issued August 13, 2020); J.L., Docket No. 18-1804 (issued April 12, 2019).

9 T.H., Docket No. 19-1891 (issued April 3, 2020); M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018). The 

Board has consistently held that pain is a symptom, rather than a compensable medical diagnosis. See P.S., Docket 

No. 12-1601 (issued January 2, 2013); C.F., Docket No. 08-1102 (issued October 10, 2008).
4

However, a finding that appellant “may” have a diagnosed condition is speculative and is not a firm 

diagnosis.

10

Appellant also submitted diagnostic reports dated March 11, 21, and 25, 2022, which 

indicated degenerative changes, but no acute findings. The Board has held that a medical report

lacking a firm diagnosis and a rationalized medical opinion regarding causal relationship is of no 

probative value.11 Therefore, these reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition 

in connection with the March 11, 2022 employment incident, 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 a diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted March 11, 2022 employment incident.

10 B.B., Docket No. 21-0284 (October 5, 2022); E.W., Docket No. 19-1393 (issued January 29, 2020); Gary L. 

Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994).

11 L.P., Docket No. 19-1812 (issued April 16, 2020); P.C., Docket No. 18-0167 (issued May 7, 2019).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 19, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 13, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board