United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, GULFPORT 

PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION 

FACILITY, Gulfport, MS, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1224

Issued: June 9, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 15, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 28, 2022 merit decision 

and an August 8, 2022 nonmerit 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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted January 31, 2022 employment incident; and 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the August 8, 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

(2) whether OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned her request for an oral hearing 

before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 1, 2022 appellant, then a 26-year-old postal clerk, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 31, 2022 she injured her shoulder when throwing a 

package into a box while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form, 

appellant’s supervisor acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty. The 

form indicated that appellant stopped work on January 31, 2022. 

By letter dated January 31, 2022, the employing establishment advised a medical facility

that it was authorized to provide emergency medical care to appellant. 

Unsigned January 31, 2022 hospital discharge instructions, indicated that appellant was 

seen by Dr. James Rose, a Board-certified emergency medicine physician, and was diagnosedwith

left shoulder pain and unspecified mononeuropathy of the left upper limb. A work status note of 

even date with an illegible signature allowed appellant to return to work with restrictions.

Appellant submitted a witness statement from a coworker, dated January 31, 2022. The 

statement indicated that appellant made a pained facial expression after picking up a box and 

placing it into another box. Appellant also provided a statement dated January 31, 2022 wherein 

she reiterated the alleged history of injury and added that she felt her shoulder pop when she threw 

the box. OWCP also received an accident statement completed by appellant, reiterating the history 

of injury.

By development letter dated February 25, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

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

OWCP received additional hospital records dated January 31, 2022, wherein Dr. Rose 

indicated that appellant was seen in an emergency department for a possible fractured shoulder. 

Dr. Rose related that appellant had lifted a heavy box at work and injured her left shoulder. He 

indicated pain in appellant’s left arm and noted diagnoses of pain in left shoulder and unspecified 

mononeuropathy of left upper limb. Dr. Rose released appellant to return to light-duty work. An 

x-ray report of appellant’s left shoulder dated February 1, 2022, by Dr. Mark Wall, a Boardcertified diagnostic radiologist, revealed a normal left shoulder.

An x-ray of the left shoulder dated February 2, 2022, read by Dr. Roland Mestayer, a 

Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, did not show any fractures or dislocations. A subsequent 

x-ray of the left shoulder dated February 21, 2022 and read by Dr. Rosemary Klecker, a Boardcertified diagnostic radiologist, showed unremarkable radiographs of the shoulder. 

On February 21, 2022 appellant was seen by Dr. Terry B. Clay, an orthopedic surgeon. 

Appellant related left shoulder pain after throwing a box at work and feeling a pop in her shoulder.

Dr. Clay noted tenderness throughout her left shoulder. He reviewed the February 21, 2022 x-ray 

by Dr. Klecker of appellant’s left shoulder and noted that it revealed no acute osseous 

abnormalities. Dr. Clay assessed possible left shoulder labral tear. 
3

By decision dated March 28, 2022, OWCP found that the incident had occurred as alleged, 

but denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient 

to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted employment incident.

On April 10, 2022 appellant requested a telephonic hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report dated April 29, 2022, signed by

Dr. Klecker, showed suspicion for defect in the supraspinatus tendon, as well as superior labral 

anterior to posterior tear within the joint space and complete tear of the coracohumeral ligament.

In a May 9, 2022 report, Dr. Clay related that appellant’s pain had not improved. He 

assessed left shoulder superior labrum from anterior to posterior tear and possible rotator cuff tear. 

In a June 13, 2022 notice, OWCP’s hearing representative informed appellant that her oral 

hearing was scheduled for July 28, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). Appellant

was provided with a toll-free number and passcode to access the hearing. The notice was mailed 

to appellant’s last known address of record. Appellant failed to appear for the hearing. 

By decision dated August 8, 2022, OWCP found that appellant had abandoned her request 

for an oral hearing, as she had received written notification of the hearing 30 days in advance, but 

failed to appear. It further noted that there was no indication in the record that she had contacted 

the Branch of Hearings and Review either prior to or after the scheduled hearing to explain his 

failure to appear. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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, that 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 determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

it must first be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There are two components 

involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component is whether the employee actually 

3

Id. at § 8101.

4

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

5 B.H., Docket No. 20-0777 (issued October 21, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016);

L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
4

experienced the employment incident that allegedly occurred. The second component is whether 

the employment incident caused a personal injury.6

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical 

opinion evidence.7 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 incidents identified by the employee.8

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has established a diagnosed condition in connection with

the accepted January 31, 2022 employment incident.

In hospital records dated January 31, 2022, Dr. Rose diagnosed unspecified

mononeuropathy of the left upper limb. The Board, therefore, finds that appellant has established 

a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted January 31, 2022 employment 

incident and, therefore, established both components of fact of injury.

9

As OWCP has not yet reviewed the medical evidence of record with regard to the issue of 

causal relationship, the case must therefore be remanded.

10

 Following any further development as 

deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision as to whether appellant has met his burden 

of proof to establish that his diagnosed medical condition is causally related to the accepted

January 31, 2022 employment incident.11

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition. The Board further finds, however, that the case is not in posture for decision with regard 

to whether his diagnosed medical condition is causally related to the accepted January 31, 2022 

employment incident.

6 M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); see 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8101(5) (injury defined); 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.5(ee), 10.5(q) (traumatic injury and occupational disease defined, 

respectively).

7

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).

8 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).

9 K.W., Docket No. 21-0389 (issued January 31, 2023); D.F.,Docket No. 20-0631 (issued September 23, 2020);

M.B., Docket No. 20-0265 (issued June 17, 2020); K.A., Docket No. 18-0999 (issued October 4, 2019).

10 See K.W., id.

11 In light of the Board’s disposition of Issue 1, Issue 2 is rendered moot.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 28, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: June 9, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board