United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.V., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, NAMPA CARRIER 

ANNEX POST OFFICE, Nampa, ID, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1331

Issued: April 4, 2022

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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 3, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 21, 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.

2

ISSUE

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

condition causally related to the accepted April 22, 2021 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that,following the June 21, 2021 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 April 28, 2021 appellant, then a 50-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 22, 2021 she sprained her left ankle when getting 

a springer to unload her LLV while in the performance of duty. She did not immediately stop 

work. 

In a separate undated statement, appellant reported returning to the office after delivering 

her mail route. She went to retrieve a springer from the building, when she turned her ankle 

causing it to pop and give out. Appellant was assisted by a coworker and reported her injury to 

management. 

On April 23, 2021 appellant was treated in the emergency department by Dr. Neeraj Soni, 

Board-certified in emergency medicine, for a right ankle injury. Dr. Soni indicated that her ability 

to work on her feet was limited due to pain and potential need for crutches. He noted that further 

follow up with an orthopedist might be required.

On April 28, 2021 the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim, asserting 

that she had not established that the incident occurred as alleged and that there was insufficient 

evidence to establish a diagnosed condition causally related to an injury or event.3

In a development letter dated May 17, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence required and provided a 

questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence. 

By decision dated June 21, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

that she had not submitted medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis in connection with 

her accepted employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been 

met to establish an injury as defined under FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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,5that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, 

3 The employing establishment provided a statement from S.M. and K.K. dated April 23, 2021, which related that 

on April 22, 2021 appellant returned from her mailroute limping. Appellantreported that she had caught her foot on 

a parcel cart and heard a “pop” in her right ankle. S.M. and K.K. noted that appellant did not want to file an accident 

report at that time because she had to attend a track meet that afternoon. On April23, 2021 appellant reported an 

injury to C.G. at 11:35 a.m.

4

Supra note 1.

5

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

153 (1989).
3

and that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related 

to the employment injury.6 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.7

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 another. The first 

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

occurred.8 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury.9

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. 10 

Neither the mere fact that, a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment, 

nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or 

incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.11

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition causally related to the accepted April 22, 2021 employment incident.

On April 23, 2021 Dr. Soni treated appellant for a right ankle injury. He indicated that her

ability to work on her feet was limited due to pain and potential need for crutches. The Board has 

held that a medical report lacking a firm diagnosis or a rationalized medical opinion regarding 

causal relationship is of no probative value.12 Therefore, this report, is insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim.

6

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

ECAB 312 (1988).

7 K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M.,Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014);

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

8 T.M., Docket No. 19-0380 (issued June 26, 2019); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

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

10 S.S.,Docket No. 18-1488 (issued March11, 2019).

11 J.L., Docket No. 18-1804 (issued April12, 2019).

12 L.P., Docket No. 19-1812 (issued April16, 2020);P.C.,Docket No. 18-0167 (issued May 7, 2019).
4

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted rationalized, probative medical evidence 

sufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with her April 22, 2021

employment incident.13 Appellant, therefore, has not met her burden of proof.

On appeal appellant asserts that she provided emergency room records from Dr. Soni that 

provide a diagnosis of ankle and ligament sprain and accompanying x-rays in support of her claim. 

The Board notes that this evidence was not in the record at the time of OWCP decision dated 

June 21, 2021. 

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 causally related to the accepted April 22, 2021 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 21, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 4, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

13 See T.J., Docket No. 18-1500 (issued May 1, 2019);see D.S.,Docket No. 18-0061 (issued May 29, 2018).