United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Boston, MA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1254

Issued: February 4, 2022

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 August 18, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 15, 2021 merit decision 

and a May 12, 2021 nonmerit 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.

ISSUES

The issue are: (1) whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish neck and back

conditions causally related to the accepted July 13, 2020 employment incident; and (2) whether 

OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of his claim pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 31, 2020 appellant, then a 44-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on July 13, 2020 he injured his lower back and the right side of his neck 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

when he fell while getting in and out of his truck to load outgoing mail while in the performance 

of duty. He did not stop work.

On August 3, 2020 the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim.

In an August 3, 2020 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Michael R. Spenard, a 

certified physician assistant, noted that appellant experienced a twinge of lower back pain while 

getting out of his truck on July 13, 2020. He diagnosed trapezius muscle spasm. 

In an August 7, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

his claim. It advised him of the type of additional factual and medical evidence needed and 

provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

In a July 31, 2020 medical note, Dr. Michael N. Fehm, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, diagnosed trapezius muscle spasm, lumbar strain, and cervical sprain. He prescribed 

physical therapy and indicated that appellant could return to work without restrictions. 

In a July 31, 2020 report, Mr. Spenard noted that appellant presented with right-sided neck 

pain and lower back pain. He diagnosed trapezius muscle spasm and lumbar strain. 

OWCP received a physical therapy report dated August 24, 2020 from Kalliope A. 

Micalizzi, a physical therapist. Ms. Micalizzi noted that appellant experienced lower back pain 

while getting out of his van at work on July 13, 2020 and diagnosed trapezius muscle spasm.

In an August 26, 2020 medical note, Dr. Fehm diagnosed cervical sprain and trapezius 

muscle spasm, and again prescribed physical therapy.

By decision dated October 6, 2020, OWCP accepted that the July 13, 2020 employment 

incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s claim, finding that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related to 

the accepted employment incident. Consequently, OWCP concluded that he had not met the 

requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

On November 6, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration. 

By decision dated December 2, 2020, OWCP modified the October 6, 2020 decision to 

find that the medical evidence of record was sufficient to establish diagnoses of cervical sprain 

and lumbar strain. The claim remained denied, however, as the medical evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish causal relationship between appellant’s diagnosed conditions and the 

accepted July 13, 2020 employment incident.

In a January 21, 2021 report, Dr. Fehm noted that appellant had been under his care for his 

work-related injury. He opined that his injury was a result of unloading heavy packages several 

times a day for prolonged hours of getting into and out of his vehicle and driving for 10 to 13 hours 

a day, which caused lumbar and cervical sprain. Dr. Fehm further explained that appellant’s 

muscle spasms were caused by remaining in the seated position for long periods of time as he was 

working the extended shifts for six to seven days a week due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He 

concluded that his injuries were directly correlated with the increased physical stress placed upon 

his spine.
3

On February 2, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. 

By decision dated April 15, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its December 2, 2020 

decision. 

On May 4, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. In an attached statement dated 

April 25, 2021, he explained that, during the January 21, 2021 conversation, he realized that he 

was experiencing lower back pain from getting in and out of his truck over an extended period of 

time. Appellant asserted that he had been experiencing slight pain for weeks leading up to 

July 13, 2020. He explained that he only discussed the alleged July 13, 2020 date of injury because 

that was the day his pain significantly increased and he required medical assistance. Appellant

noted that Dr. Fehm agreed that his injury was attributed to prolonged work duties and that on 

July 13, 2020 his back finally gave out.

By decision dated May 12, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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,3 and that 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 determine if an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established.6 There are 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. 7 The 

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

2

Supra note 1.

3

S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 

ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

4 T.H., Docket No. 18-1736 (issued March 13, 2019); 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 T.E., Docket No. 18-1595 (issued March 13, 2019); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., 

Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February7, 2014); DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990). 

6

S.S., Docket No. 18-1488 (issued March 11, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008).

7 E.M., Docket No. 18-1599 (issued March 7, 2019); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

8 E.M., id.; John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).
4

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.9 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment incident must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background.10 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 incident.11

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

OWCP’s procedures provide the proper steps required for the conversion of a claim for 

FECA benefits when it determines that a claimant has filed an improper claim form. 12 It notes that 

if upon review of an incorrect form that was filed, the actual benefits claimed by the claimant can 

be determined, OWCP should convert the claim to the correct type and notify the claimant and 

employing establishment (and any representative, if applicable) via letter that the claim has been 

converted to a different type of injury than what was originally claimed. 13 Likewise, if OWCP 

cannot determine the actual benefits claimed, it is instructed to develop the claim based upon the 

claim form filed and direct questions to the claimant to determine the type of benefits claimed.14

In this case, appellant filed a Form CA-1 on July 31, 2020 for a traumatic injury. However, 

based upon the description of injury in the Form CA-1 and a subsequent statement by appellant, 

dated April 25, 2021, he clarified that his injuries arose from performing his work duties over a 

prolonged period of time. Appellant explained that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, he was not 

able to have an in-depth conversation with his treating physician, Dr. Fehm, until January 21, 2021

when he realized the nature of his lower back pain. He asserted that he had been experiencing 

slight pain for weeks leading up to July 13, 2020 and noted that Dr. Fehm agreed that his injury 

was attributed to prolonged work duties. Based on this new statement and the medical evidence 

of record, including Dr. Fehm’s January 21, 2021 report, OWCP should have further developed 

9

S.S., supra note 6; RobertG. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

10 C.F., Docket No. 18-0791 (issued February 26, 2019); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

11 Id. 

12 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Development of Claims, Chapter 2.800.3(c)(2) (June 2011);

RichardD. Wray, 45 ECAB 758 (issued July 8, 1994) (if the actual benefits claimed by the claimant cannot be 

determined from review of the form, OWCP should develop the claim based upon the claim form filed and direct 

questions to the claimant to determine the type of benefits claimed. Based upon the response to the development 

letter, it should make a determination as to whether the correct claim was established and, if not, OWCP should convert 

the claim to the proper type of claim and notify the claimant and employing establishment of the conversion). See 

also C.C., Docket No. 20-0451 (issued August24, 2020).

13 Id. 

14 Id.
5

the claim to determine whether appellant was claiming a traumatic injury or an occupational 

disease.15

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

appellant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares 

responsibility in the development of the evidence.16 OWCP has an obligation to see that justice is 

done.17 Consequently, the Board will remand the case for OWCP to properly develop the case in 

order to determine the actual benefits claimed by appellant. On remand OWCP shall follow its 

procedures and issue a development letter to appellant with direct questions in order to determine 

the type of benefits claimed.18 After this and such further development as may be deemed 

necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.19

15 A traumatic injury is defined as a condition of the body caused by a specific event or incident, or series of events 

or incidents, within a single workday or shift. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). An occupational disease, however, is defined as 

a condition produced by the work environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift. Id. at § 10.5(q).

16 See, e.g., M.G., Docket No. 18-1310 (issued April16, 2019); Walter A. Fundinger, Jr., 37 ECAB 200, 204 (1985); 

Michael Gallo, 29 ECAB 159, 161 (1978); WilliamN. Saathoff, 8 ECAB 769-71; Dorothy L. Sidwell, 36 ECAB 699, 

707 (1985).

17 See A.J., Docket No. 18-0905 (issued December 10, 2018); WilliamJ. Cantrell, 34 ECAB 1233, 1237 (1983); 

Gertrude E. Evans, 26 ECAB 195 (1974).

18 Supra note 12.

19 In light of the Board’s disposition of Issue 1, Issue 2 is rendered moot.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 15 and May 12, 2021 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are set aside and the case is remanded for further 

proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: February 4, 2022

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