United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BEDFORD PARK 

POST OFFICE, Bedford Park, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1085

Issued: January 18, 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 July 14, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 14, 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 her burden of proof to establish a medical condition 

in connection with the accepted factors of her federal employment. 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. 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 April 28, 2022 appellant, then a 51-year-old mail handler, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed swollen ankles and knees due to factors of her 

federal employment, including extensive walking. She noted that she first became aware of her 

condition on December 5, 2021 and realized its relation to her federal employment on 

January 7, 2022. Appellant stopped work on January 7, 2022. 

In a work status note dated January 7, 2022, Dr. Harun Durudogan, an osteopath

specializing in orthopedic surgery, reported a diagnosis of acute bilateral ankle pain and indicated 

that appellant was totally disabled. 

In a March 8, 2022 work status note, Dr. Durudogan indicated that appellant could return 

to full-duty work for no more than eight hours per day. 

In work status notes dated April 1 and 22, 2022, Dr. Durudogan reported a diagnosis of 

pain and swelling of right knee. He indicated that appellant could return to work with restrictions 

of no stair climbing. 

In an April 29, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

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

claim and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

submit the necessary information. 

Appellant submitted progress notes dated January 7 and February 8, 2022 by

Dr. Durudogan who indicated that she was evaluated for complaints of left knee and bilateral ankle 

pain. Dr. Durudogan examined her left knee on February 8, 2022 and observed mild effusion and 

tenderness to palpation at the medial joint line and medial femoral condyle. Examination of 

appellant’s right knee revealed tenderness to palpation at the lateral joint line and medial femoral 

condyle. Dr. Durudogan diagnosed acute bilateral knee pain, acute left knee pain, left knee 

primary osteoarthritis, bilateral plantar fasciitis, and acute medial meniscus tear of the left knee. 

In progress notes dated February 18 through April 22, 2022, Dr. Durudogan indicated that 

appellant was seen for follow up of left knee pain. He reported that she underwent a left knee 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and diagnosed primary osteoarthritis of both knees. 

In a response dated May 4, 2022, appellant asserted that walking and ascending stairs at 

work for over six years had made her knees and feet swell.

By decision dated June 14, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. It 

accepted her employment factors, but denied the claim,finding that the medical evidence of record 

was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted factors of 

employment. OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an 

injury as defined by FECA.
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including 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 of FECA,4that 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.5 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.6

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) rationalized medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed 

condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant. 7 

To establish causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant disability 

claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit rationalized medical 

opinion evidence.8 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 

the specific employment factor(s) identified by the employee.9 The weight of the medical evidence

is determined by its reliability, its probative value, its convincing quality, the care of analysis 

manifested, and the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.10

3

Supra note 1.

4 D.D., Docket No. 19-1715 (issued December 3, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 

59 ECAB 178 (2007); JoeD. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

5 Y.G., Docket No. 20-0688 (issued November 13, 2020); J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); 

R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E.Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 C.H., Docket No. 19-1781 (issued November 13, 2020); 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). 

7 T.M., Docket No. 20-0712 (issued November 10, 2020); S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); R.H., 

59 ECAB 382 (2008).

8

S.A., Docket No. 18-0399 (issued October 16, 2018);Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

9 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 

ECAB 345 (1989).

10 D.R., Docket No. 19-0954 (issued October 25, 2019); James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991).
4

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

In progress notes dated January 7 and February 8, 2022, Dr. Durudogan noted his 

examination of appellant and diagnosed acute bilateral knee pain, acute left knee pain, left knee 

primary osteoarthritis, bilateral plantar fasciitis, and acute medial meniscus tear of the left knee. 

In progress notes dated February 18 through April 22, 2022, he noted her left knee MRI scan and 

diagnosed primary osteoarthritis of both knees. The Board finds, therefore, that the reports by

Dr. Durudogan are sufficient to establish diagnoses of bilateral primary osteoarthritis, left knee 

medial meniscus tear, and bilateral plantar fasciitis.11 

As the medical evidence of record establishes diagnosed medical conditions, the case must 

be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence with regard to the issue of causal 

relationship.12 Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP 

shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish medical conditions 

in connection with the accepted employment factors. The Board further finds, however, that the 

case is not in posture for decision as to whether her diagnosed conditions are causally related to 

the accepted factors of employment.

11 See E.L., Docket No. 21-0587 (issued July 6, 2022); see also T.C., Docket No. 17-0624 (issued 

December 19, 2017).

12 See S.R., Docket No. 22-0421 (issued July 15, 2022); S.A., Docket No. 20-1498 (issued March 11, 2021).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 14, 2022 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 18, 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