United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ALBION POST 

OFFICE, Albion, IN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0499

Issued: August 14, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 26, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 13, 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 in connection with the accepted factors of his federal employment. 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the December 13, 2022 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. Appellant 

also submitted additional evidence on appeal to the Board. 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 October 21, 2022 appellant, then a 57-year-old city letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained right hip and knee pain as a result of factors 

of his federal employment including wear from walking 12 miles a day for the last 28 years. He 

noted that he first became aware of his condition and realized its relation to his federal employment 

on August 5, 2022.

Appellant submitted an unsigned clinical visit summary dated October 20, 2022, which 

noted an assessment of severe right hip primary osteoarthritis.

In a development letter dated October 26, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

establish his claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 

days to respond. No response was received. 

By decision dated December 13, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition in connection with the accepted factors of his federal employment. 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 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 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 

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); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
3

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

causally related to the identified employment factors.6

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical 

opinion evidence.7 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship between the 

diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factor(s) must be based on a complete factual 

and medical background.8 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be expressed in terms of a 

reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale, explaining 

the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s specific 

employment factor(s).9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted factors of his federal employment.

Appellant submitted an unsigned clinical visit summary dated October 20, 2022. The 

Board has held that reports that are unsigned or bear an illegible signature cannot be considered 

probative medical evidence as the author cannot be identified as a physician. 10 Therefore, this 

clinical visit summary is of no probative value and is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing a diagnosis of a 

medical condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment, the Board 

finds that he has not met his burden of proof.11

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 his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted factors of his federal employment. 

6 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).

7

20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996).

8 Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9

John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

10 C.S., Docket No. 20-1354 (issued January 29, 2021); D.T., Docket No. 20-0685 (issued October 8, 2020); 

Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988).

11 W.O., Docket No. 22-0418 (issued February 15, 2023). 
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 13, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 14, 2023

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board