United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Tampa, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0077

Issued: June 27, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 23, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 23, 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 right lower 

extremity condition causally related to the accepted June 8, 2020 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the September 23, 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 June 15, 2020 appellant, then a 43-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on June 8, 2020 she injured her right knee and leg when she fell 

exiting her vehicle and walking to a mailbox. She stopped work on June 8, 2020.

A June 11, 2020 state workers’ compensation form report signed by Lori Spicer, an 

advanced practice registered nurse, indicated that appellant sought treatment for a work-related 

injury she sustained on June 8, 2020. Appellant was diagnosed with right anterior knee pain and 

contusion. In a duty status report (Form CA-17) of even date, Ms. Spicer diagnosed right knee 

contusion and provided work restrictions.

In a June 15, 2020 statement, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim, 

noting that it found no evidence of her falling while delivering mail.

In a June 15, 2020 Form CA-17, an unidentifiable healthcare provider diagnosed right knee 

contusion.

Appellant submitted prescription slips from Ms. Spicer dated June 19, 2020 for medication 

and an order for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan.

A July 9, 2020 MRI scan of the right knee demonstrated bone narrowing, which signaled 

abnormality involving the inferior pole of the patella, and minor prepatellar soft tissue 

inflammatory change. Findings were also suspicious for a subacute bone bruise/impaction fracture 

and likely subacute contusion.

Appellant also submitted an August 7, 2020 state workers’ compensation form report 

signed by Brittany Alce, a certified physician assistant.

In a development letter dated August 18, 2020, OWCP informed appellant that her claim 

initially appeared to be a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time from work, and 

while limited expenses had been authorized, a formal decision was now required. It advised 

appellant of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to establish her claim and provided 

a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to provide the necessary 

evidence.

In a June 11, 2020 report, Ms. Spicer indicated that appellant presented with right knee 

pain related to a June 8, 2020 incident where she slipped in a slippery substance while delivering 

mail at work. Appellant alleged that she first fell on her right knee and then on her left knee. 

Ms. Spicer conducted a physical examination and diagnosed right knee injury, pain, and contusion. 

A June 11, 2020 x-ray of the right knee revealed mild osteoarthritic knee narrowing and 

spurring at the right patellofemoral joint. 

In a June 19, 2020 report, Ms. Spicer noted that appellant continued to experience right 

knee pain. She reiterated her findings and diagnoses. 
3

In an August 7, 2020 report, Ms. Alce conducted a physical examination and diagnosed 

right knee injury, pain, and contusion.

Appellant also submitted a September 17, 2020 state workers’ compensation form report 

signed by Dr. Richard Bost, Board-certified in family medicine, who indicated that appellant 

sought treatment for a work-related injury she sustained on June 8, 2020.

By decision dated September 23, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim. 

It accepted that the June 8, 2020 employment incident occurred as alleged, but denied her claim 

finding that she had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish a medical diagnosis. 

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

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 and 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 

3

Supra note 1.

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

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).

7 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 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); RobertG. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).
4

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.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a right knee 

contusion causally related to the accepted June 8, 2020 employment incident.

OWCP found that the June 8, 2020 employment incident, in which appellant fell while 

delivering mail, had occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged. In a number of reports,

Ms. Spicer diagnosed a contusion of the right knee. OWCP’s procedures provide that, 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.10 

As the evidence of record establishes that appellant’s accepted employment incident 

resulted in a visible injury, the Board finds that she has met her burden of proof to establish a right 

knee contusion causally related to the accepted June 8, 2020 employment incident.11 The case 

will, therefore, be remanded to OWCP for payment of medical expenses for appellant’s diagnosed 

right knee contusion. 

The Board further finds that appellant has not established additional conditions causally 

related to the accepted employment injury.

Appellant submitted reports that diagnosed pain, but provided no diagnosis other than 

contusion. The Board has consistently held that pain is a symptom and not a compensable medical 

diagnosis.12 A medical report lacking a firm diagnosis is of no probative value.13 As such, this 

evidence is insufficient to meet appellant’s 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.

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 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Development of Claims, Chapter 2.800.6(a) 

(June 2011); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3(c) 

(January2013). See also R.H., Docket No. 20-1684 (issued August 27, 2021); A.J., Docket No. 20-0484 (issued 

September 2, 2020).

11 Id.; P.B., Docket No. 20-1643 (issued March 30, 2022);S.K., Docket No. 18-1411 (issued July 22, 2020).

12 See B.T., Docket No. 22-0022 (issued May 23, 2022); S.L., Docket No. 19-1536 (issued June 26, 2020); B.P., 

Docket No. 12-1345 (issued November 13, 2012).

13 J.P., Docket No. 20-0381 (issued July 28, 2020);R.L., Docket No. 20-0284 (issued June 30, 2020).
5

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant established a right knee contusion causally related to the 

accepted June 8, 2020 employment incident. The Board further finds that that appellant has not 

established additional conditions causally related to the accepted employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 23, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed in part and affirmed in part.

Issued: June 27, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board