United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bedford Park, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0093

Issued: February 7, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 25, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 6, 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 12, 2021 appellant, then a 57-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed a knee condition due to factors of her federal 

employment, including repetitive walking and ascending stairs. She explained that she began 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

having problems with her knee in 2019, including swelling and an increase in pain, when 

performing her official duties. Appellant noted that she first became aware of her condition on 

July 15, 2019 and realized its relation to her federal employment on September 1, 2019. She did 

not stop work.

In a development letter dated July 20, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her 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 

submit the necessary evidence. 

On August 16, 2021 appellant requested a 30-day extension to submit the requested 

information. OWCP approved her request on August 19, 2021. No response was received. 

By decision dated October 6, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that she had not established the factual component of her claim as she neither responded 

to its developmental questionnaire nor submitted any evidence. Consequently, it found that she 

had not met the requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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,3that 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.4 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.5

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, an employee 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.

6

2

Id.

3 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued December 13, 2019); 

Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

4 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).

5 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).

6 T.W., Docket No. 20-0767 (issued January 13, 2021); L.D., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); S.C., 

Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019).
3

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged.

In her Form CA-2, appellant alleged that she developed a knee condition beginning in 2019 

due to her employment factors, including repetitive walking and ascending stairs. OWCP, in its 

July 20, 2021 development letter, informed her of the deficiencies of her claim. 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 her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

Appellant, however, did not respond to OWCP’s development letter or provide evidence

identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence 

of a medical condition.7 As noted, she bears the burden of submitting a factual statement 

identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence 

of a disease or condition.8

As the evidence of record is insufficient to establish the alleged employment factors, the 

Board finds that appellant has not met her 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.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged. 

7

Id. 

8

Id.; Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 6, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: February 7, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board