United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Birmingham, AL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0489

Issued: August 2, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 17, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 19, 2022 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted November 18, 2021 employment incident. 

1 The Board notes that, following the January19, 2022decision, appellant submitted 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

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 13, 2021 appellant, then a 31-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 18, 2021 she was punched in the 

left eye, resulting in a bruise, by a women who accused her of stealing the contents of her package

while in the performance of duty. She attested that her assailant had a man with her who knew 

personal information about her and threatened her. On the reverse side of the claim form 

appellant’s supervisor indicated that she was injured in the performance of duty. The employing 

establishment, however, controverted appellant’s claim. Appellant stopped work on 

November 18, 2021.

In a development letter dated December 17, 2021, OWCP advised appellant of the type of 

factual and medical evidence needed and provided appellant with a questionnaire. It afforded 

appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. In a letter of even date to the employing 

establishment, OWCP noted that it had controverted appellant’s claim as she had not participated 

in an investigation of the incident and had not sought medical treatment as of December 10, 2021. 

In imaging reports dated December 14, 2021, Dr. Richard Coleman, a Board-certified 

diagnostic radiologist, related that appellant was assaulted on November 8, 2021 and suffered a 

headache, dizziness, and pain in her face and left eye. He reported an impression of mild lateral 

ventricular enlargement without evidence of periventricular edema or other evidence of mass 

effect or increased intracranial pressure. Dr. Coleman related that this was likely a congenital 

variant; however, he recommended that appellant undergo a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 

scan. He also reviewed an imaging study of appellant’s facial bones, which was negative for facial 

fracture. 

Appellant submitted a statement dated November 18, 2021attestingthat she was delivering 

mail when she was approached by two individuals who accused her of stealing the contents of a

package that she had delivered a few days ago. She explained that she did not steal anything, but 

retaped the package because it was open and contents were spilling out. Appellant alleged that the 

male individual knew personal information about her, but that she had never seen the two 

individuals before and did not know how they had information about her. She related that the 

female reached into the vehicle and punched her in the left eye. Appellant also submitted undated 

photographic images of appellant’s left eye.

By decision dated January 19, 2022, OWCP accepted that the November 18, 2021 

employment incident occurred, as alleged, but denied appellant’s claim, finding that she had not 

submitted medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis in connection with h er accepted 

employment incident. 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 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 

3

Id.
3

States within the meaning 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 

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 must first be determined whether a f act of injury has been established. 

There are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component to be 

established is that 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. The 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 factors 

identified by the employee.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a medical 

condition causally related to the accepted November 18, 2021 employment incident.

Appellant was seen and evaluated by Dr. Coleman on December 14, 2021, who noted that 

appellant was assaulted on November 18, 2021. Dr. Coleman related that appellant experienced 

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).

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).
4

headache, dizziness and left facial and eye pain. The Board has long held that headache,10

dizziness,11 and pain12 are symptoms, but not firm diagnoses. The Board has held that a medical 

report lacking a firm diagnosis and a rationalized medical opinion regarding causal relationship is 

of no probative value.13 Dr. Coleman also noted an impression of mild lateral ventricular 

enlargement without evidence of periventricular edema or other evidence of mass effect or 

increased intracranial pressure. He related that this was likely a congenital variant. As

Dr. Coleman did not provide a firm diagnosis causally related to the accepted employment incident 

his reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.14

Appellant also submitted photographs, which purportedly showed her bruised eye. While 

a photograph demonstrating a visible bruise, memorialized contemporaneously to the date of 

injury, may be sufficient to establish a minor injury, the photographs submitted did not contain 

information evidencing that the photographs were taken of appellant at a certain date.15 The Board 

also notes in this regard that, while appellant alleged on her CA-1 form that she had experienced 

a black eye for a week, the supervisor’s statements on the reverse side of the claim form did not 

indicate that a black eye had been visualized. The Board, therefore, finds that appellant has not 

established that she sustained a visualized minor injury on November 18, 2021.

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

related to the accepted November 18, 2021 employment injury. While appellant also alleged that 

she was traumatized by the November 18, 2021 incident, she has not submitted any evidence of 

an emotional condition resulting from the accepted employment incident. 

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.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a medical 

condition causally related to the November 18, 2021 employment incident. 

10 J.P., Docket No. 20-0381 (issued July 28, 2020);see Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340 (2003). See also Larry M. 

Leudtke, Docket 03-1564 (issued September 2, 2003) (where the Board found that headache described a symptomand 

did not constitute a firm diagnosis of a medical condition.

11 P.S., Docket No. 10-1560 (issued June 23, 2011).

12 T.G., Docket No. 19-0904 (issued November 25, 2019).

13 R.L., Docket No. 20-0284 (issued June30, 2020).

14 Id.

15 T.W., Docket No. 20-0807 (issued December 3, 2020). 
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 19, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: August 2, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board