United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.E., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, WEST HELENA POST 

OFFICE, West Helena, AR, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0255

Issued: May 26, 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 December 12, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 21, 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 diagnosed medical 

condition in connection with the accepted September 12, 2022 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the November 21, 2022decision, 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 15, 2022 appellant, then a 36-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on September 12, 2022, he sustained a medial collateral 

ligament tear of the left knee when he walked from his LLV to a porch on uneven ground while in 

the performance of duty.

In a development letter dated October 18, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. 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. 

OWCP subsequently received a note dated October 10, 2022, wherein Dr. David Wassell, 

an orthopedic surgeon, indicated that appellant was seen in his clinic on that date and that he

recommended sedentary work restrictions. 

By decision dated November 21, 2022, OWCP accepted that the September 12, 2022

employment incident occurred, as alleged. However, it denied the claim, finding that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with

the accepted employment incident. Thus, appellant had not met the requirements to establish an 

injury as defined by FECA. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including the fact 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 period 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 determine if an employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Fact of injury 

consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one anothe r. The first 

3

S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

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 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).
3

component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that allegedly 

occurred.6 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury.7

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is required to establish causal relationship. The 

opinion of the physician must be based on 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 his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted September 12, 2022 employment incident.

Appellant submitted a note dated October 10, 2022, wherein Dr. Wassell, indicated that 

appellant was seen in his clinic on that date and that he recommended sedentary work restrictions. 

However, Dr. Wassell’s note did not contain a diagnosis. 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.9 As such, the October 10, 2022 note is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition 

in connection with the accepted September 12, 2022 employment incident, the Board finds that 

appellant has not met his 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 his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted September 12, 2022 employment incident.

6 B.P., Docket No. 16-1549 (issued January 18, 2017); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

7 M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8 M.O., Docket No. 19-1398 (issued August 13, 2020); J.L., Docket No. 18-1804 (issued April 12, 2019).

9 L.P., Docket No. 19-1812 (issued April 16, 2020); P.C., Docket No. 18-0167 (issued May 7, 2019).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 21, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 26, 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