United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

San Antonio, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0181

Issued: May 19, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 15, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 19, 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 a medical condition 

causally related to the accepted May 6, 2021 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the August 19, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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 June 29, 2021 appellant, then a 52-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on May 6, 2021 she sustained injury to her right leg and left little finger 

when she attempted to regain balance and hit it against a tray while in the performance of duty. 

She stopped work on May 6, 2021 and returned to work on May 7, 2021. 

In a development letter dated July 15, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

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

claim and afforded her 30 days to respond.

In a statement dated July 28, 2021, appellant noted that she did not remember the exact 

date of injury at first, but that she sustained the injury to her fingers and right leg on May 6, 2021. 

OWCP received duty status reports(Forms CA-17) dated May 17, 2021,and July 19, 2021,

with illegible signatures. 

By decision dated August 19, 2021, OWCP accepted that the May 6, 2021 employment 

incident had occurred, as alleged. However, it denied the claim, finding that the medical evidence 

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

accepted employment incident. Thus, OWCP concluded that appellant had not met the 

requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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,3that 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 has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Fact of injury 

consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The first 

3

S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

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 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

component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that allegedly 

occurred.6 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury.7

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is required to establish causal relationship. The 

opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background, 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 incident.8

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a medical 

condition causally related to the accepted May 6, 2021 employment incident.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted duty status reports dated May 17, 2021, and 

July 19, 2021, with illegible signatures. The diagnoses were listed as left finger strain/sprain. The 

Board has held that medical evidence containing an illegible signature, or which is unsigned has 

no probative value, as it is not established that the author is a physician. 9 As such, these duty status 

reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted May 6, 2021 employment incident.

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence explaining causal 

relationship between her claimed conditions and the accepted May 6, 2021 employment incident, 

the Board finds that she has not met her 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.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a medical 

condition causally related to the accepted May 6, 2021 employment incident.

6 B.P., Docket No. 16-1549 (issued January 18, 2017); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

7 M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issuedMarch13, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8 M.O., Docket No. 19-1398 (issued August13, 2020); J.L., Docket No. 18-1804 (issued April12, 2019).

9

See T.C., Docket No. 21-1123 (issued April5, 2022); Z.G., 19-0967 (issued October 21, 2019); see R.M., 59 

ECAB 690 (2008); MertonJ. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988); Bradford L. Sullivan, 33 ECAB 1568 (1982).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 19, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 19, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board