United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BRADLEY STATION, 

Milwaukee, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1048

Issued: September 15, 2021

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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 16, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 24, 2020 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 November 26, 2019 employment incident.

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that,following the February24, 2020 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 January 7, 2020 appellant then a 61-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on November 26, 2019 she sustained a cut above her right eye when a 

handcart she was loading rocked forward and struck her face. She did not stop work. On the 

reverse side of the claim form, appellant’s supervisor, J.C., acknowledged that appellant was 

injured in the performance of duty and certified that his knowledge of the injury comported with 

the information provided by appellant. 

In a January 16, 2020 development letter, OWCP advised appellant that it had not received 

any medical evidence in support of her FECA claim. It requested that she submit a narrative 

medical report from her physician, which included a diagnosis and an opinion on causal 

relationship that explained how the reported November 26, 2019 employment incident either 

caused or aggravated her medical condition. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the 

requested information. 

OWCP subsequently received a November 26, 2019 report signed by Anne Gustavson, a 

certified physician assistant, who noted that appellant was seen for a right eye laceration. 

Ms. Gustavson recounted that appellant was hit in the face that day when a mail cart she was 

loading sprung forward, causing a laceration above the right eye. 

By decision dated February 24, 2020, OWCP accepted that the November 26, 2019 

employment incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied the claim, finding that appellant had 

not established a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the accepted employment 

incident, thus, the requirements had not been met for establishing an injury as defined by FECA. 

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

 

3

Supra note 1.

4 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020);

James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016);

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
3

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There 

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must submit 

sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the 

time, place, and in the manner alleged. Second component is whether the employment incident 

caused a personal injury and can be established only by medical evidence.7

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific 

condition and an employment incident is 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 specific employment incident or 

factors identified by the employee.9

Pursuant to OWCP’s procedures, no development of a claim is necessary where the 

condition reported is a minor one which can be identified on visual inspection by a lay person (e.g.,

burn, laceration, insect sting, or animal bite).10 No medical report is required to establish a minor

condition such as a laceration.11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a laceration above 

her right eye causally related to the accepted November 26, 2019 employment incident. 

The Board notes that, pursuant to Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, 

Initial Development of Claims, Chapter 2.800.6(a) (June 2011), if a condition reported is a minor 

one, such as a burn, laceration, insect sting, or animal bite, which can be identified on visual 

inspection by a lay person, a case may be accepted without a medical report and no development 

of the case need be undertaken, if the injury was witnessed or reported promptly, and no dispute 

exists as to the occurrence of an injury; and no time was lost from work due to disability. 12 This 

 

7 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January28, 2020); K.L.,Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M.,Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April24, 2019); Robert G. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

9 T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 2020);

Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

10 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.800.6(a) (June 2011).

11 Id.; see J.S., Docket No. 20-0764 (issued January 12, 2021) (the evidence of record was sufficient to establish a 

contusion/bruise to the middle back/right back rib as causally related to the accepted employment incident); B.C., 

Docket No. 20-0498 (issued August27, 2020) (the evidence of record was sufficient to establish a lumbar contusion 

as causally related to the accepted employment incident); S.H., Docket No. 20-0113 (issued June 24, 2020) (the 

evidence of record was sufficient to establish a right ankle contusion as causally related to the accepted employment 

incident); M.A., Docket No. 13-1630 (issued June 18, 2014).

12 Supra note 10.
4

section of OWCP’s procedures further states that, in cases of serious injury (motor vehicle 

accidents, stabbings, shootings, etc.) if the employing establishment does not dispute the facts of 

the case, and there are no questionable circumstances, the case may be accepted for a minor 

condition, such as laceration, without a medical report, while simultaneously developing the case 

for other more serious conditions. This is true even if there is lost time due to such a serious 

injury.13

Appellant noted on her claim form that she suffered a laceration above her right eye after

the handcart she was loading rocked forward and struck her face. The employing establishment 

acknowledged that the incident occurred in the performance of duty. In a November 26, 2019 

report, Ms. Gustavson, a certified physician assistant, diagnosed a laceration, noting that appellant 

had been hit in the face that day when the mail cart she was loading sprung forward and caused a 

laceration. 

The Board finds that this information is sufficient to meet the standards set forth in 

OWCP’s procedures for accepting a laceration above appellant’s right eye without a medical report 

from a qualified physician. Based on the description of the condition, it was a minor condition 

identifiable on visual inspection by a lay person.14 The signature of J.C., appellant’s supervisor, 

on the January 7, 2020 Form CA-1 clearly indicate that appellant’s laceration above the right eye 

had been viewed and accepted as work related, and that the incident alleged by appellant to have 

taken place on November 26, 2019 occurred in the performance of duty. The November 26, 2019 

report from Ms. Gustavson supports the existence of a laceration above the right eye capable of 

being identified on visual inspection by a lay person.

Accordingly, the Board finds that appellant has established a laceration above the right eye.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a laceration above 

the right eye causally related to the accepted November 26, 2019 employment incident.

 

13 Id.

14 See supra note 11.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 24, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed.

Issued: September 15, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board