United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, NEWNAN POST 

OFFICE, NEWNAN, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0916

Issued: May 18, 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 May 27, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 4, 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 a medical condition 

causally related to the accepted March 8, 2021 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the May 4, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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 March 16, 2021 appellant, then a 60-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on March 8, 2021 she sustained multiple injuries, including sprain of 

lumbar spine ligaments, left hip pain, and left shoulder pain, when her work vehicle was struck 

while in the performance of duty.3 She noted that a motorist collided with her vehicle, which

caused a metal mail tray to become dislodged, striking her in the back of her shoulder. Appellant 

stopped work on the date of injury and returned to work on March 24, 2021.

In a form report dated March 22, 2021, Dr. Theron Thompson, a Board-certified family 

physician, noted a date of injury of March 8, 2021 and diagnosedsprain of ligaments of the lumbar 

spine. He listed a second diagnosis of “driver injured in collision with unsp mv in traf.”

Dr. Thompson released appellant to return to work with restrictions of no lifting, pulling, or 

pushing greater than 10 pounds and limited bending and twisting. 

In an April 1, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

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

and provided 30 days for her to submit the requested evidence. No further evidence was received.

By decision dated May 4, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosis causally related to the 

accepted March 8, 2021 employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had 

not been met to establish an injury as defined under FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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,5that 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.6 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.7

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There 

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must submit 

3 The record reflects that appellant has a prior claim for a March 26, 2014 traumatic injury accepted for neck and 

lumbar sprains, under OWCP File No. xxxxxx204. This claim is not presently before the Board.

4

Supra note 1.

5 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

6 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).

7 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).
3

sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the 

time and place, and in the manner alleged. The second component is whether the employment 

incident caused a personal injury and can be established only by medical evidence. 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 not met her burden of proof to establish a medical 

condition causally related to the accepted March 8, 2021 employment incident. 

In her March 16, 2021 Form CA-1, appellant indicated that she injured her back, left hip, 

and left shoulder on March 8, 2021 when a motorist collided with her vehicle and caused a metal 

mail tray to become dislodged striking her in the back of her shoulder. In his report dated 

March 22, 2021, approximately two weeks after the incident, Dr. Thompson diagnosed sprain of 

ligaments of lumbar spine and noted her history of a motor vehicle accident. However, he did not 

provide any rationalized medical opinion relating the diagnosed back conditions to the accepted 

employment incident11 Therefore, the March 22, 2021 form report of Dr. Thompson is insufficient 

to establish appellant’s claim.

OWCP, in its April 1, 2021 development letter, notified appellant that the evidence it had 

received was insufficient to establish her claim and afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence. However, no further medical evidence was received prior to OWCP’s May 4, 2021

decision. As noted above, an employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to 

establish the essential elements of his or her claim.12 

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

to the accepted March 8, 2021 employment incident, the Board finds that appellant has not met 

her burden of proof. 

8 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); 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).

11 See supra note 9

12 Supra note 6.
4

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 medical 

condition causally related to the accepted March 8, 2021 employment incident. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 4, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 18, 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