United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ROSWELL POST 

OFFICE, Roswell, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1029

Issued: November 29, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 27, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 16, 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 his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted June 2, 2021 employment incident. 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the issuance of OWCP’s May 16, 2022 decision, appellant submitted evidence

on appeal. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the 

evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before the 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 

new evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 1, 2022 appellant, then a 61-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on June 2, 2021 he sustained injuries to his right index finger when it

got caught in a door jamb of his vehicle while delivering mail in the performance of duty. He

indicated his finger required six stitches due to a deep cut. On the reverse side of the claim form, 

appellant’s supervisor acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty.

Appellant stopped work on June 3, 2021. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted clinical summaries dated June 2 and 7, 2021 

from Amanda Noe, a family nurse practitioner. On June 2, 2021 Ms. Noe diagnosed unspecified 

open wound of the right ring finger, without damage to the nail. In a work status note of even date, 

she indicated that appellant was advised to return to work on June 4, 2021 with a restriction on 

right hand use until June 7, 2021. Appellant was seen on June 7, 2021 for a laceration and

diagnosed with an unspecified open wound to his right ring finger. In a work status note of even 

date, he was released by Ms. Noe to return to work without restriction. 

By development letter dated April 11, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of his claim. It advised him of the type of medical evidence needed and afforded him 30 days to 

submit the necessary evidence. 

By decision dated May 16, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in connection 

with the accepted employment incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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, 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 whether an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

it must first be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There are two components 

involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component is whether the employee actually 

experienced the employment incident that allegedly occurred. The second component is whether 

3

Supra note 1.

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 B.H., Docket No. 20-0777 (issued October 21, 2020); 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

the employment incident caused a personal injury and can generally be established only by medical 

evidence.6

To establish causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant disability 

claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit rationalized medical 

opinion evidence.7 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 

the specific employment factor(s) identified by the employee.

8

 The weight of the medical evidence 

is determined by its reliability, its probative value, its convincing quality, the care of analysis 

manifested, and the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a laceration of his 

right index finger causally related to the June 2, 2021 employment incident. 

OWCP accepted that appellant caught his right index finger in a door jamb on June 2, 2021. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted reports dated June 2 and 7, 2021 signed by Ms. Noe, 

a nurse practitioner. Ms. Noe diagnosed an open wound and laceration of his right index finger. 

This diagnosis was consistent with appellant’s physical examination and the mechanism of 

injury.10 As appellant has established that he sustained a visible injury, the Board finds that he has 

met his burden of proof to establish a right index finger laceration causally related to the accepted 

June 2, 2021 employment incident. The case will, therefore, be remanded for payment of medical 

expenses for his injury, to be followed by a de novo decision regarding any attendant disability.11

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a right index finger 

laceration causally related to the accepted June 2, 2021 employment incident.

6 M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); see 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8101(5) (injury defined); 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.5(ee), 10.5(q) (traumatic injury and occupational disease defined, 

respectively).

7

S.A., Docket No. 18-0399 (issued October 16, 2018);Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

8 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 

ECAB 345 (1989).

9 D.R., Docket No. 19-0954 (issued October 25, 2019); James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991).

10 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Development of Claims, Chapter 2.800.6(a) 

(June 2011); id. at Chapter 2.805.3(c) (January 2013). See also A.J.,Docket No. 20-0484 (issued September 2, 2020);

S.K.,Docket No. 18-1411 (issued July 22, 2020).

11 B.W., Docket No. 22-0134 (issued May 24, 2022); K.V., Docket No. 21-1409 (issued April19, 2022).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 16, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation is reversed.

Issued: November 29, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board