United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Harrisburg, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0389

Issued: January 31, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 21, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 7, 2020 merit decision 

and a November 9, 2020 nonmerit 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.

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

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

(2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing as untimely filed,

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b).

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 14, 2020 appellant, then a 59-year-old maintenance mechanic, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed pain in his left hand, thumb, 

wrist, and forearm due to factors of his federal employment. He explained that he began feeling 

pain in his thumb and hand around April 11, 2020, which progressively worsened until he 

ultimately experienced a popping sensation in his thumb and wrist. Appellant noted that he first 

became aware of his conditions on April 11, 2020 and realized their relation to his federal 

employment on April 18, 2020. He stopped work on May 4, 2020.

In a May 4, 2020 medical report, Dr. Joseph F. Ciecko, Board-certified in family practice, 

noted that appellant presented with complaints of left hand pain. Appellant related that he had 

worked 39 days consecutively, requiring repetitive use of his hand. He further related that his pain 

started in his thumb and then migrated to the top of his hand, amplifying while using a banding 

machine at work. Dr. Ciecko diagnosed thumb tendinitis and wrist tendinitis of the left hand. In 

a medical note of even date, he noted that appellant was under his care and excused him from work 

from May 4 through 18, 2020.

In a May 5, 2020 statement, appellant noted that his daily work tasks included vacuuming 

letter sorting machines, requiring repetitive twisting of his hands, fingers, and wrists. He explained 

that his work duties required use of both hands because the hose of the vacuum pulled downward 

while he maneuvered the crevice tools or other attachment into the areas needed to be vacuumed. 

Appellant contended that this put a lot of pressure on his hands, fingers, thumbs, and wrists. He 

noted that his other tasks involved opening and closing numerous doors with a large machine key, 

which made his hands move 90 degrees to the right to open and 90 degrees to the left to close. 

Appellant indicated that he was sometimes in charge of conducting mail searches on a parcel 

sorting machine and this task involved going under the machine in awkward positions while using 

a rake or squeegee to retrieve the packages that had fallen under, or gotten caught somewhere 

inside the machine. He asserted that this task required more twisting of his hands and wrists, which 

put more pressure on his thumb when maneuvering the rake in different angles and positions to 

retrieve the packages. Appellant noted that since the COVID-19 pandemic, he was the only 

maintenance mechanic working the dayshift. He asserted that he only had one day off between 

March 15 and April 29, 2020 and worked 43 days for 12 hours each day. Appellant denied having 

any strenuous activities outside of work that were relevant to his conditions. He contended that he 

realized that he needed medical assistance on April 29, 2020 while using a handheld banding 

device to strap batteries to pallets when the pressure to press down on the device caused a sharp 

pain in the top of his hand to the point where he had to stop using the device numerous times while 

performing his assigned task. 

In a development letter dated May 19, 2020, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical 

evidence needed and attached a factual questionnaire for his completion. A separate development 

letter of even date was sent to the employing establishment requesting information surrounding 

the circumstances of the alleged injury. OWCP afforded both parties 30 days to respond.

In a May 18, 2020 medical report, Dr. Ciecko noted that appellant had no new symptoms 

and diagnosed left thumb and wrist tendinitis.
3

In a June 16, 2020 response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, appellant reiterated

that his work duties, including vacuuming and conducting mail searches on letter/parcel sorting 

machines, as well as using a banding machine to strap batters down for shipping purposes, 

contributed to his conditions. He again explained that his vacuuming tasks involved repetitive 

twisting of his hands, fingers, and wrists. Appellant reiterated that he had to retrieve lost parcels 

with tools twisting awkwardly under sorting machines. He indicated that he performed his work 

duties daily and that since the COVID-19 pandemic, he worked alone during his shift, which 

dramatically increased his workload, sometimes twice as many machines to cover as usual. 

Appellant asserted that he experienced pain in his thumb, wrist, and forearm. He contended that 

overuse of his hand made his pain worse while resting helped relieve it. Appellant alleged that he 

never had severe pain in his hand and had no issue except for trigger finger, which was surgically 

treated in 1986.

In response to the May 19, 2020 development letter, OWCP received a position description 

for a maintenance mechanic, and a June 19, 2020 letter from the employing establishment, which 

controverted appellant’s claim, noting that his duties as a maintenance mechanic were not 

repetitive or excessive in nature.

In a June 21, 2020 letter, Dr. Ciecko noted that appellant was seen for thumb, hand, and 

forearm pain. He reported that his symptoms coincided with an increased workload, working 12 

hours each day for approximately two months. Dr. Ciecko noted that the nature of appellant’s 

symptoms and his physical examination findings were consistent with an overuse or repetitive 

motion disorder. He opined that appellant’s condition was consistent with a work-related injury. 

By decision dated August 7, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that he had not 

met his burden of proof 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.

In a September 21, 2020 letter, Dr. Daniel Torres, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

diagnosed left thumb/middle trigger finger, left radial tunnel syndrome, and left carpometacarpal 

arthritis aggravation. He opined that appellant’s diagnosed conditions were aggravated by the 

recent increase in work. In a progress report of even date, Dr. Torres noted that appellant presented 

for follow-up evaluation of his left-hand pain. He indicated that he received a left thumb trigger 

injection on June 4, 2020. Dr. Torres noted that appellant had an increase in his workload and 

believed that that may have aggravated his symptoms. He diagnosed left thumb trigger finger, left 

middle trigger finger, and osteoarthritis.

In an October 5, 2020 letter, Dr. Ciecko noted that he evaluated appellant on May 4, 2020. 

He opined that his physical examination findings were consistent with an overuse/repetitive injury.

On October 13, 2020 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

By decision dated November 9, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative denied appellant’s 

request for an oral hearing, finding that the request was untimely filed. The hearing representative 

informed appellant that the issues had been considered by OWCP in its August 7, 2020 decision 
4

and could be further addressed by requesting reconsideration and submitting evidence not 

previously considered. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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,3 and 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 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 employment factors identified by the claimant.6

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish causal 

relationship is 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 specific employment factors identified by the employee.8

2

Supra note 2.

3

S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March13, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 

ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

4 T.H., Docket No. 18-1736 (issued March 13, 2019); 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 T.E., Docket No. 18-1595 (issued March 13, 2019); 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). 

6

S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008).

7 A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April24, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 

238 (1996).

8 R.G., Docket No. 18-0792 (issued March 11, 2020); D.J., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); I.J., 59 

ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
5

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has established a diagnosed condition in connection with 

the accepted factors of his federal employment.

In his May 4, 2020 medical report, Dr. Ciecko noted appellant’s complaint of left hand 

pain that he developed while at work. He diagnosed thumb tendinitis and wrist tendinitis of the 

left hand. In a May 18, 2020 medical report, Dr. Ciecko again diagnosed left thumb and wrist 

tendinitis. In a June 21, 2020 letter, Dr. Ciecko noted that appellant reported that his symptoms 

coincided with an increased workload, and opined that appellant’s diagnosed condition was 

consistent with a work-related injury caused by an overuse or repetitive motion disorder. In an 

October 5, 2020 letter, Dr. Ciecko again opined that his physical examination findings were 

consistent with an overuse/repetitive injury. Similarly, in a progress report and letter dated 

September 21, 2020, Dr. Torres diagnosed left thumb trigger finger, left middle trigger finger, left 

radial tunnel syndrome, osteoarthritis, and left carpometacarpal arthritis aggravation. The Board 

finds that appellant has established diagnosed medical conditions in connection with the accepted 

employment factors and, therefore, established both components of fact of injury.9

As OWCP has not yet reviewed the medical evidence of record with regard to the issue of 

causal relationship, the case must therefore be remanded.10 Following such further development 

as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision as to whether appellant has met his 

burden of proof to establish that his diagnosed medical conditions are causally related to the 

accepted factors of his federal employment.11

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish diagnosed medical 

conditions causally related to the accepted employment factors. The Board further finds, however, 

that the case is not in posture for decision with regard to whether appellant’s diagnosed medical 

conditions are causally related to the accepted employment factors.

9 D.F., Docket No. 20-0631 (issued September 23, 2020); M.B., Docket No. 20-0265 (issued June 17, 2020); K.A., 

Docket No. 18-0999 (issued October 4, 2019).

10 See D.F., id. 

11 In light of the disposition as to Issue 1, Issue 2 is rendered moot.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 7, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: January 31, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board