United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MARYSVILLE POST 

OFFICE, San Francisco, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0740

Issued: November 3, 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 April 27, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 5, 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 his burden of proof to establish a medical condition 

causally related to the accepted June 23, 2022 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the December 5, 2022 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 October 21, 2022 appellant, then a 26-year-old carrier technician, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on June 23, 2022 he was bitten by a dog on the back side 

of his left hamstring while in the performance of duty. He stopped work that day. Appellant 

returned to full-time regular duty on June 24, 2022. On the reverse side of the claim form, 

appellant’s supervisors, S.E. and S.S., acknowledged that appellant was in the performance of duty 

and certified that their knowledge of the injury comported with the information provided by 

appellant.

In a June 24, 2022 Doctor’s First Report of Occupational Injury or Illness, a healthcare 

provider with an illegible signature noted that on June 23, 2022 appellant reported a dog bite on 

the left hamstring while walking to mailbox to deliver mail. A diagnosis of dog bite was provided. 

In the attached June 24, 2022 emergency department discharge instructions, a certified physician 

assistant provided a discharge diagnosis of dog bite and need for post exposure prophylaxis for 

rabies due to the injury. 

In an October 26, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the 

documentation received in support of his claim was deficient. It advised him of the type of factual 

and medical evidence necessary and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded 

appellant 30 days to respond. No response was received.

By decision dated December 5, 2022, OWCP accepted that the June 23, 2022 employment 

incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s claim, finding that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical condition causally related to the accepted 

June 23, 2022 employment incident. OWCP concluded, therefore, that appellant had not met the 

requirements 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 

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).
3

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, the employee must submit sufficient evidence 

to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.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 the employment incident identified 

by the employee.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a dog bite to his left 

hamstring due to the accepted June 23, 2022 employment incident.

OWCP accepted that the dog bite incident of June 23, 2022 occurred as alleged. The next 

day, appellant presented to the emergency department where a healthcare provider with an illegible 

signature noted that on June 23, 2022 appellant sustained a dog bite to his left hamstring while

delivering mail. A diagnosis of dog bite was provided. A certified physician assistant also 

diagnosed a dog bite in June 24, 2022 emergency room discharge instructions.

The record establishes that appellant submitted medical evidence from healthcare providers 

containing a dog bite diagnosis in connection with his claim.10 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 even without a 

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);

Delores C. 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 January24, 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).

10 See D.S., Docket No. 21-1315 (issued May 5, 2022); S.A., Docket No. 20-1498 (issued March 11, 2021);A.H., 

Docket No. 20-0730 (issued October 27, 2020); B.C., Docket No. 20-0079 (issued October 16, 2020).
4

medical report.11 As the evidence of record establishes a diagnosed visible injury, the Board finds 

that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a dog bite causally related to the accepted 

June 23, 2022 employment incident.12 Appellant, therefore, has established an injury in the 

performance of duty. The case will, therefore, be remanded for payment of medical expenses and 

any attendant disability.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a dog bite to his left 

hamstring due to the accepted June 23, 2022 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 5, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed.

Issued: November 3, 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

11 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Development of Claims, Chapter 2.805.3(c) 

(January 2013). See also A.J., Docket No. 20-0484 (issued September 2, 2020).

12 See D.S., supra note 10; R.H., Docket No. 20-1684 (issued August 27, 2021).