United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CANAL STREET 

STATION, NEW YORK, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0180

Issued: December 2, 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

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 15, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 4, 2021 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 that a traumatic 

incident occurred on September 11, 2021 in the performance of duty as alleged.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the November 4, 2021 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to 

OWCP. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedures 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. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 21, 2021 appellant, then a 61-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 11, 2021 at 2:00 a.m. he sustained a left

upper arm injury when repetitively lifting parcels while in the performance of duty.3 He stopped 

work on the date of injury. On of the reverse side of the Form CA-1, appellant’s supervisor, J.G., 

contended that appellant was not in the performance of duty at the time of the alleged injury 

because he was not scheduled to work on the designated date or at the designated time of injury. 

In a statement dated September 11, 2021, appellant indicated that on September 10, 2021 

he was given a truck assignment. The next day, his left arm was sore and painful, and he was 

unable to extend it fully. Appellant reported this injury to his supervisor on September 11, 2021.

On September 13, 2021 Dr. Michael Plokamakis, a Board-certified internist, diagnosed 

acute tendinitis and a pulled muscle in the arm. He excused appellant from work while he was 

undergoing treatment and recovering from the injury.

In a September 22, 2021 letter, K.F., an employing establishment workers’ compensation 

specialist, challenged appellant’s claim, asserting that on September 11, 2021 at 2:00 a.m., when 

the injury allegedly occurred, appellant was not working at the employing establishment and was 

not authorized to work at any employing establishment property. K.F. noted that payroll records 

did not support that appellant worked on September 11, 2021 at 2:00 a.m.

In a development letter dated October 1, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. It advised him of the type of evidence necessary to establish his claim 

and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

OWCP subsequently received a September 24, 2021 report, wherein Dr. Joseph N. 

Charles, a Board-certified pediatrician, noted treating appellant for left shoulder pain. Appellant 

reported lifting and delivering parcels weighing up to 70 pounds when he injured his left shoulder. 

Dr. Charles diagnosed strain of the muscle of the left shoulder and sprain of the left shoulder. He

opined that, based on appellant’s history and physical examination, to a reasonable degree of 

medical certainty, appellant’s injuries were causally related to the above-noted incident. 

Dr. Charles also found that appellant was totally disabled from work. 

In an October 1, 2021 note, Dr. Charles opined that appellant remained totally disabled

from work. He indicated that appellant reported pain when sitting more than 30 minutes that he

was limited in pushing, pulling, and lifting heavy objects; and that he had difficulty reaching in all 

directions due to limited range of motion of his shoulder. 

In an undated statement, appellant indicated that on September 11, 2021 he reported to 

work for a tour of duty from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. He explained that on September 10, 2021 he 

delivered parcels by truck, and, after his tour, his arm and shoulder were very painful and sore to 

the extent that he could not fully extend his left arm. Appellant reported informing his supervisor,

J.G., of the incident who instructed him not to clock in and indicated that she would file a workers’

3 K.F., an occupational health processing specialist, signed the Form CA-1 on behalf of appellant.
3

compensation claim on his behalf using a Form CA-1. He asserted that he was claiming an 

occupational disease and a Form CA-2 should have been filed instead. 

On October 7, 2021 Dr. William King, a Board-certified orthopedist, treated appellant for 

left shoulder and left elbow pain. Appellant reported working as a delivery man and on 

September 11, 2021, while lifting parcels, he injured his left shoulder and elbow. He noted 

physical therapy provided only temporary relief of symptoms and opined that he remained totally 

disabled from work. Appellant reported experiencing chronic pain that affected his activities of 

daily life. On examination of the left shoulder Dr. King noted tenderness upon palpation over the 

acromioclavicular (AC) joint and supraspinatus and limited range of motion. With regard to the 

left elbow, he noted tenderness on palpation over the medial epicondyle and limited range of 

motion. Dr. King diagnosed left shoulder and left elbow derangement. Dr. King opined that 

appellant’s current pain symptoms were a direct result of the accident that occurred on 

September 11, 2021. 

In a form report dated October 19, 2021, Dr. King diagnosed left shoulder derangement 

and left elbow derangement. Appellant reported lifting parcels at work when he injured his left 

shoulder and elbow. Dr. King recommended physical therapy and advised that appellant was 

totally disabled. On November 2, 2021 he recommended a left shoulder arthroscopy and noted 

that appellant remained totally disabled.

A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the left shoulder dated October 12, 2021 

demonstrated impingement morphology, mild-to-moderate degree superior labrum anterior 

posterior (SLAP) tear without involvement of the biceps anchor, and subchondral cyst involving 

the humeral head.

By decision dated November 4, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the factual evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the employment 

incident occurred as described. 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,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 

4

S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).
4

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 the following: (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 identified employment factors. 7

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.8 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.9 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).10

ANALYSIS

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

Appellant initially filed a Form CA-1 alleging a September 11, 2021 traumatic injury 

arising from his employment duties involving repetitively lifting parcels with his left arm. In an 

accompanying narrative statement, he alleged that hisinjury was due to delivering parcels by truck

on September 10, 2021. In response to OWCP’s development letter, however, appellant explained 

that on September 10, 2021 he delivered parcels by truck, and after his tour, his left arm and 

shoulder were very painful to the extent that he could not fully extend his left arm. Appellant 

reported informing his supervisor, J.G., of the incident who instructed him not to clock in and 

indicated that she would file a workers’ compensation claim on his behalf using a Form CA-1. He 

subsequently asserted that he was claiming an occupational disease and that a Form CA-2 should 

have been filed instead. 

5

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 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 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).

8 T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

9 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018).

10 Victor J. Woodhams, supra note 7.
5

A traumatic injury is defined as a condition of the body caused by a specific event or 

incident, or series of events or incidents, within a single workday or shift.

11

 An occupational 

disease is defined as a condition produced by the work environment over a period longer than a 

single workday or shift.12 It is the duty of the claims examiner to develop a claim based on the 

facts at hand and not solely on the basis of the type of claim form filed. 13 OWCP’s procedures 

provide that if the actual benefits claimed by the claimant cannot be determined from review of 

the form, OWCP should develop the claim based upon the claim form filed and direct questions to 

the claimant to determine the type of benefits claimed. Based upon the response to the 

development letter, it should make a determination as to whether the correct claim was established 

and, if not, it should convert the claim to the proper type of claim, and notify the claimant and 

employing establishment (and any representative, if applicable) of the conversion. 14 

As appellant indicated in his response to OWCP’s development letter that he in fact 

intended to file an occupational disease claim, the case must be remanded to OWCP to determine 

whether the correct claim was established and, if not, it should convert the claim to the proper type 

of claim, and notify the claimant and employing establishment (and any representative, if 

applicable) of the conversion.

15

 After this and other such further development as deemed 

necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.16

CONCLUSION

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

11 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 

12 Id. at § 10.5(q).

13 Id.

14 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Development of Claims, Chapter 2.800.3(c)(2)(b) 

(June 2011). S.N., Docket No. 12-1814 (issued March 11, 2013).

15 Id.

16 See Y.M., Docket No. 19-1445 (issued May 6, 2020).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 4, 2021 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: December 2, 2022

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