United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.V., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SALT LAKE 

PERFORMANCE OFFICE, Salt Lake City, UT, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1494

Issued: June 22, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On August 3, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 30, 2020 decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

docketed the appeal as No. 20-1494. 

On November 19, 2019 appellant, then a 47-year-old sales and service distribution

associate, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she developed bilateral hand 

pain and numbness due to “competitive” movement of her fingers on November 16, 2019. On the 

reverse side of the claim form, D.M., a health and resource management specialist for the

employing establishment, controverted continuation of pay contending that her claim was not a 

traumatic injury. In a letter of controversion of even date, D.M. argued that the claim appeared to 

be one of an occupational disease as appellant’s statement supported that the injury developed over 

time, and therefore was not traumatic, and thus, should have been filed as an occupational disease 

claim using Form CA-2. 

In a November 25, 2019 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant clarify 

whether she was claiming a traumatic injury or an occupational disease. It subsequently received 

an undated attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) from Dr. Jonathan Donigan, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, and a December 2, 2019 duty status report (Form CA-17) from an 
2

unidentifiable healthcare provider indicating that her condition had been ongoing for several years, 

and her work had at least exacerbated, if not caused, carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). 

By decision dated December 30, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that she had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the events occurred as 

alleged. Thus, it concluded that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined 

by FECA. 

On February 1, 2020 appellant filed a request for reconsideration and attached a statement 

with excerpts from literature addressing CTS and a statement where she alleged that her condition 

was caused by repetitive motions required for sorting and loading mail and packages, tearing cards,

and gripping, pulling, and pushing cage handles. In a February 11, 2020 narrative statement, she

reiterated that her job required repetitive motion, and that she experienced progressively worsening 

hand pain and numbness while working over a period longer than a single workday or shift.1 By 

decision dated April 30, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. 

Under FECA, although it is the employee’s burden of proof to establish his or her claim, 

OWCP also has a responsibility in the development of the factual evidence.2 It is the duty of the 

claims examiner to develop a claim based on the facts at hand and not solely on the basis o f the 

type of claim form filed.3 The Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual provides that, if the actual 

benefits claimed 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, OWCP should make a 

determination as to whether the correct claim was filed and, if not, it should convert the claim to 

the proper type of claim and notify both appellant and the employing establishment (and any 

representative, if applicable) of the conversion.4

Having reviewed the case record submitted by OWCP, the Board finds that this case is not 

in posture for a decision. OWCP appears to have sought to develop appellant’s claim as one for a 

traumatic injury rather than one for an occupational disease. Appellant indicated a traumatic injury 

by filing a Form CA-1, but her narrative statement and the medical evidence of record provides 

support for an occupational disease injury. Consequently, OWCP should have converted the claim 

to an occupational disease and then notified her and the employing establishment of the 

conversion.5 The Board finds that OWCP failed to provide this necessary notification and instead 

denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding instead that she had not submitted sufficient 

1 A traumatic injury means 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 is defined as a condition 

produced by the work environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q).

2 G.S., Docket No. 16-0908 (issued October 26, 2017); WillieA. Dean, 40 ECAB 1208, 1212 (1989); Willie James 

Clark, 39 ECAB 1311, 1318-19 (1988).

3

Id.

4 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Development of Claims, Chapter 2.800.3(c)(2)(b) 

(June 2011); C.f. S.N., Docket No. 12-1814 (issued March 11, 2013).

5

Id.
3

evidence to establish the factual portion of her claim.

6

 As OWCP continued to treat this claim as 

a traumatic injury claim, her history of exposure to the work environment over a period of time 

was not properly acknowledged as employment factors by OWCP, nor was proper notice of the 

claim conversion provided as is required.

Therefore, the case shall be remanded for conversion of the claim to one for an occupational 

disease followed by appropriate notice provided to appellant. Following this and any other further 

development deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision on appellant’s claim for an 

occupational disease.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 30, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside, and the case is remanded for further action consistent with 

this order of the Board.

Issued: June 22, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

6

See A.J., Docket No. 18-0727 (issued February 2019).