United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Oakland, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0899

Issued: January 25, 2023

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

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 5, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 31, 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 employment factors, 

as alleged.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that,following the March 31, 2021 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP.

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 January 28, 2021 appellant, then a 62-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging injury due to performing her job, which involved the collection and 

delivery of postal materials. She asserted that, after 30 years of service, her job duties of walking, 

climbing stairs, getting in and out of her postal vehicle, and carrying heavy packages caused injury 

to her right knee. Appellant indicated that she first became aware of her claimed condition and its 

relation to her federal employment on December 14, 2020. On the reverse side of the form 

appellant’s immediate supervisor advised that appellant reported the claimed condition to her on 

January 14, 2020. In an accompanying statement, appellant indicated that she initially thought the 

pain from her claimed condition would go away with time, but it persisted to the point she could 

barely walk on her right leg, and then sought medical treatment. 

Appellant submitted a January 14, 2021 work status report from Dr. Glenn A. Cooperman, 

a Board-certified occupational medicine specialist, who diagnosed overuse injury and right medial 

knee pain. Dr. Cooperman placed appellant on modified-duty work with work restrictions, 

including no repetitive squatting, prolonged/repetitive kneeling, walking on uneven ground, heavy 

or repetitive pushing/pulling, climbing, or prolonged standing/walking. 

In a development letter dated February 1, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to 

establish her claim, and provided a questionnaire for her completion. In a separate development 

letter of even date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide comments from a 

knowledgeable supervisor on the accuracy of the statements appellant made regarding her claim. 

It afforded both parties 30 days to respond.

In response, appellant submitted a January 22, 2021 work status report from Dr. David P. 

Reyes, a Board-certified emergency medicine specialist, who diagnosed right medial knee pain.

3

 

Dr. Reyes recommended modified-duty work with the same work restrictions as outlined in

Dr. Cooperman’s January 14, 2021 work status report. In February 8, 18, and March 25, 2021 

work status reports, Dr. Cooperman diagnosed overuse injury and right medial knee pain and 

continued to recommend modified-duty work. In a March 11, 2021 work status report, Dr. Reyes 

diagnosed right knee pain and continued to recommend modified-duty work.

In a March 9, 2021 letter, a health and resource management specialist for the employing 

establishment responded to OWCP’s February 1, 2021 request for additional information. In 

response to OWCP’s question regarding whether the employing establishment concurred with 

appellant’s allegations, the specialist noted, “[t]here was no communication or medicals from the 

employee prior to [December 14, 2020].” She noted that appellant worked as a city carrier for 

eight hours per day, five days per week. The management specialist asserted that appellant did 

not actually carry heavy packages, although she did acknowledge that she moved heavy packages

by using a hand truck to transport them from her postal vehicle to customers’ front doors. She 

indicated that the duration of appellant’s lifting duties was approximately 30 minutes on an 

3 OWCP also received a number of administrative documents regarding the management of occupational disease 

claims and employee rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act. No completed questionnaire was received from 

appellant.
3

intermittent basis. The specialist advised that appellant was required to bend and stoop on 

occasions when packages were placed on her workstation floor, and that she had to lift them off 

the floor and place them into her postal vehicle for delivery. An official job description for the 

city carrier position was attached, which indicated that the job requires collecting mail, and 

delivering it on foot or by postal vehicle. The description further indicates that a city carrier is

required to carry mail weighing up to 35 pounds in shoulder satchels or other equipment and to 

load/unload containers of mail weighing up to 70 pounds.

By decision dated March 31, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the claimed employment 

events occurred as she described. 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 FECA4 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,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 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 

causally related to the identified employment factors.

8

 

An injury does not have to be confirmed by eyewitnesses in order to establish the fact that 

an employee sustained an injury in the performance of duty, but the employee’s statements must 

be consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances and his or her sub sequent course of 

4

Supra note 1.

5

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

6

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

7 R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April 25, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014);

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

8 R.G., Docket No. 19-0233 (issued July 16, 2019). See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005);Ruby I. 

Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994);Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).
4

action.9 The employee has not met his or her burden of proof in establishing the occurrence of an 

injury when there are such inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt upon the validity 

of the claim.10 Such circumstances as late notification of injury, lack of confirmation of injury, 

continuing to work without apparent difficulty following the alleged injury, and failure to obtain 

medical treatment may, if otherwise unexplained, cast serious doubt on an employee’s statements 

in determining whether a prima facie case has been established. An employee’s statements 

alleging that an injury occurred at a given time and in a given manner are of great probative value 

and will stand unless refuted by strong or persuasive evidence.11

ANALYSIS

The Board findsthat appellant has met her burden of proof to establish employment factors, 

as alleged.

In the present case, appellant alleged injury due to performing her city carrier job, which 

involved the collection and delivery of postal materials. She asserted that, after 30 years of service, 

her job duties of walking, climbing stairs, getting in and out of her postal vehicle, and carrying 

heavy packages caused injury to her right knee. In its response to a February 1, 2021 development 

letter, the employing establishment acknowledged that appellant performed the essential duties of 

a city carrier as referenced in the Form CA-2, such as collecting, handling, and delivering mail. 

Although the employing establishment asserted that appellant did not actually carry heavy 

packages, it did acknowledge that she used a hand truck to transport them from her postal vehicle 

to customers’front doors. The evidence of record reflects that appellant indicated she first became 

aware of her claimed condition on December 14, 2020 and appellant’s immediate supervisor 

advised that appellant reported the condition to her on January 14, 2021. Medical evidence in the 

case record demonstrates that appellant first sought medical care for her right knee condition on 

January 14, 2021. The Board notes, however, that appellant explained her delay in reporting the 

condition and seeking medical care. She indicated that she initially thought the pain from her righ t 

knee condition would go away with time, but that the pain persisted, and she then decided to visit 

a doctor.

For these reasons, the injury claimed by appellant and the implicated employment factors 

are consistent with the facts and circumstances she set forth, the statements from the employing 

establishment, and her course of action. As noted above, a claimed injury does not have to be 

confirmed by eyewitnesses in order to establish the fact that an employee sustained an injury in 

the performance of duty, but the employee’s statements must be consistent with the surrounding 

facts and circumstances, and his or her subsequent course of action.12 An employee’s statements 

alleging that an injury occurred at a given time and in a given manner are of great probative value,

9 M.F., Docket No. 18-1162 (issued April9, 2019); Charles B. Ward, 38 ECAB 667 (1987).

10 See V.J., Docket No. 19-1600 (issued March 13, 2020);E.C., Docket No. 19-0943 (issued September 23, 2019).

11 See M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); D.B., 58 ECAB 464, 466-67 (2007).

12 Id.
5

and will stand unless refuted by strong or persuasive evidence. 13 Appellant was consistent in 

reporting her claimed condition and its presumed causes, and there are no such inconsistencies in 

the evidence as to cast serious doubt upon the validity of her claim.14 The case record does not 

contain strong or persuasive evidence refuting appellant’s account of her claimed injury. The 

Board thus finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish employment factors as 

alleged, including collecting, handling, and delivering mail.

As appellant has established that the employment factors factually occurred as alleged, the 

question becomes whether the employment factors caused an injury. 15 As OWCP denied 

appellant’s claim on the basis that she had not established an employment factor, the case will be 

remanded for OWCP to evaluate the medical evidence of record and determine whether appellant 

sustained an injury casually related to the accepted employment factors. Following this and other 

such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board findsthat appellant has met her burden of proof to establish employment factors, 

as alleged. The Board further finds that the case is not in posture for decision regarding whether 

she sustained an injury causally related to the accepted employment factors.

13 See id.

14 See supra note 10.

15 See M.S., Docket No. 21-0600 (issued August31, 2021); M.A., Docket No. 19-0616 (issued April10, 2020);

C.M., Docket No. 19-0009 (issued May 24, 2019).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 31, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed in part and set aside in part. The case is remanded 

to OWCP for further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: January 25, 2023

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