United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Gulfport, MS, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0236

Issued: May 10, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 6, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 16, 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.

ISSUE

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

condition in connection with the accepted July 31, 2022 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 22, 2022 appellant, then a 54-year-old mail processing clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 31, 2022 she injured her wrist, hand, and arm when 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

her hand was caught behind two rolling racks while in the performance of duty. She did not stop 

work. 

In a statement dated July 31, 2022, appellant related that she was pushing a rack towards 

another rack of mail, when her wrist became caught between the two racks. She noted that she

experienced pain throughout the night, after which she scheduled a medical appointment. 

Appellant noted that her hand was swollen, discolored, and bruised from her fingers to her left

wrist.

In a form report dated September 12, 2022, Dr. Charles J. Winters, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed a contusion of the left hand and wrist and noted an approximate 

date of injury of August 1, 2022. He provided work restrictions of lifting no more than 10 pounds 

and limited use of the left hand.

In an October 8, 2022 note, an unidentifiable healthcare provider, related that appellant 

was treated that day and she was held off work until October 9, 2022. 

In an October 12, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish her 

claim and provided a factual questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days 

to submit the necessary evidence. 

By decision dated November 16,2022, OWCPaccepted that the July 31, 2022 employment 

incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that 

she had not submitted medical evidence establishing a diagnosed medical condition from a 

qualified physician in connection with the accepted July 31, 2022 employment incident. 

Consequently, OWCP found that the requirements had not been met 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 

2

Id.

3 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.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 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. The first component 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.6

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.7 The opinion of the physician must be based upon a complete factual 

and medical background, 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 specific employment incident.8

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition in connection with the accepted July 31, 2022 employment incident. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a September 12, 2022 form report in which

Dr. Winters diagnosed a contusion of the left hand and wrist, and noted that the approximate date 

of injury was August 1, 2022. While Dr. Winters’ September 12, 2022 report contained firm 

diagnoses, he did not relate the injury to the accepted July 31, 2022 employment incident or 

provide a history of injury. The Board has previously explained that medical reports which contain 

an incomplete or incorrect history of injury are of diminished probative value.

9

 Therefore, as this 

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.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

7

I.J., Docket No. 19-1343 (issued February 26, 2020); T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 

238 (1996).

8 D.C., Docket No. 19-1093 (issued June 25, 2020); see L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018).

9 A.F., Docket No. 22-1221 (issued December 8, 2022); M.G.,Docket No. 18-1616 (issued April9, 2020); J.M., 

Docket No. 17-1002 (issued August22, 2017) (a medical opinion must reflect a correct history and offer a medically 

sound explanation by the physician of how the specific employment incident physiologically caused or aggravated the 

diagnosed conditions). See alsoR.A., Docket No. 20-0969 (issued August9, 2021); L.D., Docket No. 19-0263 (issued 

June 19, 2019).
4

report did not provide a firm diagnosis made in connection with the accepted July 31, 2022 

employment incident, it is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.10

Appellant submitted an October 8, 2022 note from an unidentifiable healthcare provider.

The Board has held that reports that are unsigned or bear an illegible signature lack proper 

identification and cannot be considered probative medical evidence as the author ca nnot be 

identified as a physician.

11

 Accordingly, this report is also insufficient to satisfy appellant’s burden 

of proof.

As appellant has not submitted medical evidence establishing a diagnosed medical 

condition in connection with the accepted July 31, 2022 employment incident, the Board finds that 

she has not met her burden of proof to establish her claim. 12

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 diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted July 31, 2022 employment incident.

10 M.O., Docket No. 21-1068 (issued March 1, 2022).

11 See R.C., Docket No. 19-0376 (issued July 15, 2019).

12 K.R., Docket No. 21-0822 (issued June 28, 2022).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 16, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 10, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board