United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Grand Rapids, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0933

Issued: February 23, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 2, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 28, 2021 merit decision of

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to the Federal Employees’

Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over

the merits of this case.

3

1 Appellant’s AB-1 form indicates that she is appealing from a May 12, 2021 decision of OWCP; however, there is 

no such decision found in the case record. The most recent final adverse decision of OWCP was a January 28, 2021 

merit decision.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that, following the January 28, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 12, 2020 appellant, then a 56-year-old letter carrier, filed a notice of 

recurrence (Form CA-2a) alleging that on February 1, 2020 he experienced a worsening of left 

ankle pain and symptoms related to a July 14, 2017 employment injury.4 He attributed his 

condition to being on his feet and an increase of movement to perform his job duties after his work 

hours increased. Appellant did not stop work. On December 4, 2020 OWCP converted the 

recurrence claim to an occupational disease claim as he claimed left ankle conditions due to new 

factors of employment over the course of more than one workday or shift, and assigned it OWCP 

File No. xxxxxx789.

In a medical report dated June 18, 2020, Dr. Timothy Tetzlaff, a family medicine specialist, 

related a history of a July 2017 left ankle sprain, which initially improved, but then slowly 

worsened over the past three months. He related that appellant had difficulty ambulating,

extremely uncomfortable dorsiflexion, and pain at the top of the left foot, and that his job duties 

involved walking for miles each day. On physical examination, Dr. Tetzlaff documented that 

appellant reported pain in the dorsum of the left foot and was wearing an ankle brace. He assessed

a recent worsening of a work-related left foot injury. 

A left ankle magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report dated August 17, 2020 

revealed mild-to-moderate first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint osteoarthritis with partial 

thickness/low grade turf toe and subtle edema in the first metatarsal head, mild second MTP joint 

osteoarthritis, likely chronic deficiency of the anterior talofibular ligament, evidence of a previous 

injury to the calcaneofibular ligament, and mild inframalleolar peroneus brevis tendinosis.

In a report dated October 30, 2020, Dr. Scott A. Nemec, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon and foot and ankle specialist, related appellant’s history of spraining his left ankle when 

he stepped in a hole on July 14, 2017. He noted that since that injury, he experienced pain within 

the lateral aspect of the ankle, which had progressively worsened over the past year and was most 

prevalent while walking down stairs or on uneven surfaces. On physical examination, Dr. Nemec 

documented pain in the left peroneal tendon. He reviewed appellant’s MRI scan and obtained xrays. Dr. Nemec diagnosed left ankle sprain/instability and subtle cavus with lateral foot overload. 

He recommended physical therapy, followed by surgical intervention. 

In a development letter dated December 4, 2020, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

4 OWCP previously accepted a July 14, 2017 traumatic injury claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx338 for a sprain 

of ligament of the left ankle. As appellant’s claims have not been administratively combined, the evidence pertaining 

to OWCP File No. xxxxxx338 is not part of the case record presently before the Board.
3

provided a questionnaire for his completion, and afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence. No response was received.

By decision dated January 28, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that he had not established the factual component of his claim, as he had not submitted 

additional evidence to substantiate his employment-related activities in response to its 

December 4, 2020 development letter. 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 FECA5 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,6that 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.7 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.8

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit: (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 condition for which 

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

casually related to the identified employment factors.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged.

On his claim form, appellant indicated that he experienced worsening left ankle pain and 

function following an increase in his work hours, resulting in an increase in prolonged standing 

and movement performing his duties. He did not, however, submit a detailed account of the 

alleged employment factors or any additional corroborating factual evidence describing how he 

5

Supra note 2.

6 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

7 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).

8 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).

9 T.W., Docket No. 20-0767 (issued January 13, 2021); L.D., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); S.C., 

Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019).
4

sustained an injury due to an increase of movement and being on his. Similarly, Dr. Tetzlaff’s 

June 18, 2020 report and Dr. Nemec’s October 30, 2020 report do not identify any employment 

factors alleged to have caused the worsening of appellant’s diagnosed conditions. The Board has 

found that such a vague recitation of facts does not support a claimant’s burden to establish an 

injury in the performance of duty, as alleged.10

OWCP, in its December 4, 2020 development letter, informed appellant of the type of 

factual and medical evidence needed to establish his claim. Appellant, however, did not respond 

to OWCP’s December 4, 2020 development letter and did not provide a factual statement 

identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence 

of a medical condition.

11

As there is no evidence of record sufficient to establish an injury in the performance of 

duty, as alleged, the Board finds that appellant has not met his 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 10.607.12

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged.

10 T.C., Docket No. 20-1513 (issued June 3, 2021); M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); M.B., Docket 

No. 11-1785 (issued February 15, 2012).

11 Supra note 9.

12 Upon return of the case record, OWCP should consider administratively combining OWCP File No. xxxxxx338 

with the present claim. 
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 28, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 23, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board