United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

F.U., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PLEASANTVILLE 

POST OFFICE, Pleasantville, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1205

Issued: January 9, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 18, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 24, 2022 merit decision of

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’

Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over

the merits of this case.

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a right ankle

condition causally related to the accepted December 20, 2018 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 30, 2020 appellant, then a 53-year-old rural delivery specialist, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 20, 2018

3 she injured her right ankle when 

she returned to her delivery truck after delivering an extremely high volume of mail and parcels

while in the performance of duty. She explained that she heard a popping sound while climbing 

into her truck, followed by excruciating pain from her ankle up her leg and swelling, which made 

it difficult for her to stand and walk.

4

 Appellant did not stop work.

In a July 7, 2020 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. No response was received.

By decision dated August 11, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that she had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish a medical diagn osis in 

connection with the accepted January 2, 2019 employment incident. Consequently, it found that 

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

On August 12, 2020 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review, which took place on December 16, 2020. 

Appellant continued to submit evidence, including prescriptions from Dr. Jack Bondi, a 

podiatrist, dated January 3, 2019 through July 23, 2020, holding her off work due to Achilles 

tendinosis. 

In an October 2, 2020 medical narrative, Dr. Bondi noted that appellant first presented to 

his office on August 6, 2015 for a prior work injury to her right ankle and subsequently underwent 

surgical intervention on April 7, 2017. He related that she made a slow recovery after surgery and 

returned to work without restrictions, however, on or after December 25, 2019, while stepping into 

her work truck, she felt a sudden pop in her right ankle. Dr. Bondi indicated that appellantreported 

that she worked through the pain until she could no longer do so. He diagnosed acute tendinosis 

that evolved into a chronic condition and concluded that she sustained severe and lasting injuries 

which were a direct and causal result of her job. 

3 Appellant’s claim form noted January 2, 2019 as the date of injury; however, the record indicates 

December 20, 2018is the correct date of injury.

4 Appellant has a previously accepted June 10, 2015 traumatic injury claim for a right ankle sprain under OWCP 

File No. xxxxxx452. OWCP subsequently combined the present claim, OWCP File No. xxxxxx965, with the prior 

claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx452 serving as the master file.
3

In a December 29, 2020 letter, appellant asserted that she had submitted medical evidence 

from her attending physician and that the employing establishment did not properly handle her 

disability claim nor provide adequate guidance to her during her recovery. She also alleged that

the employing establishment engaged in unprofessional behavior and falsely accused her of 

making untrue statements. 

By decision dated February 24, 2021, the hearing representative modified OWCP’s 

January 19, 2021 decision to find that appellant had established a medical diagnosis in connection 

with the accepted December 20, 2018 employment incident. However, the claim remained denied 

finding that the evidence of record did not establish a causal relationship between the diagnosed 

condition and accepted employment incident. The hearing representative further modified the date 

of injury from January 2, 2019 to December 20, 2018 and instructed OWCP to administratively 

combine the present claim in OWCP File No. xxxxxx965 with appellant’s previously accepted 

right ankle injury under OWCP File No. xxxxxx452. 

Appellant continued to submit evidence including a March 30, 2021 visit note in which

Dr. Bondi assessed right foot pain. OWCP also received a form report of even date from Dr. Bondi

with an addendum signed by him on September 27, 2021 providing work restrictions. 

In an unsigned July 28, 2021 return to duty form, an unsigned note from Dr. Bondi’s office

indicated that appellant was released to work with restrictions. 

In an October 12, 2021 visit note, Dr. Bondi reiterated his prior assessment and 

recommended rest, ice, compression, elevation, and advised appellant to wear a brace in the 

evening. 

On February 23, 2022 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the 

February 24, 2021 decision and submitted additional evidence.

In a February 22, 2022 addendum to his October 2, 2020 report, Dr. Bondi clarified that 

the date of injury was actually December 20, 2018 and noted that appellant returned to work on 

May 1, 2018 after recovering from surgical repair of her right ankle on April 7, 2017. He related 

that on December 20, 2018 she felt a pop in her right ankle while stepping into her truck. Dr. Bondi 

explained that the act of stepping up requires the gastrocnemius/soleus complex to fire rapidly and 

with significant force, which is the mechanism by which the Achilles tendon forces the heel to 

push upward. He opined that, given appellant’s atrophy in this area from her prior surgery, the act 

of forced plantarflexion can produce micro-tearing of the Achilles and tendinosis, and that this 

force creates a mechanism known as ballistic stretching, which in a vulnerable tendon can create 

injury. Dr. Bondi further opined that ballistic stretching requires tendons to stretch beyond their 

normal range of motion and initiates a situation where the muscle tendon complex both stretches 

and contracts simultaneously, thus creating the injury. He concluded that, in his medical opinion,

appellant sustained severe and lasting injuries as a direct and causal result of her employment. 

By decision dated May 24, 2022, OWCP denied modification of its February 24, 2021 

decision.
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 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,6that 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.7 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.8

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 whether 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.9

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific 

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence.10 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 the specific employment incident 

identified by the claimant.11

In any case where a preexisting condition involving the same part of the body is present 

and the issue of causal relationship, therefore, involves aggravation, acceleration or precipitation, 

the physician must provide a rationalized medical opinion that differentiates between the effects 

of the work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition.12

5

Supra note 2.

6 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). 

7 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).

8 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); 

DeloresC.Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

9 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

10 S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 2019); 

Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

11 A.S., Docket No. 19-1955 (issued April9, 2020);LeslieC. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

12 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013);

K.G., Docket No. 18-1598 (issued January 7, 2020); M.S.,Docket No. 19-0913 (issued November 25, 2019).
5

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

In his February 22, 2022 report, Dr. Bondi noted that on December 20, 2018 appellant

stepped into her truck and felt a pop in her right ankle. He explained that the act of stepping up 

caused the gastrocnemius/soleus complex to fire rapidly with significant force, which is the 

mechanism by which the Achilles tendon forces the heel to push upward. Dr. Bondi opined that, 

given appellant’s atrophy in this area from her prior surgery, the act of forced plantarflexion can 

produce micro-tearing of the Achilles, tendinosis, and ballistic stretching, wherein the tendons 

stretch beyond their normal range and the muscle tendon complex stretches and contracts 

simultaneously, thus creating the injury. He further opined that ballistic stretching requires 

tendons to stretch beyond their normal range of motion and initiates a situation where the muscle 

tendon complex both stretches and contracts simultaneously, thus creating the injury. Dr. Bondi 

concluded that, in his medical opinion, appellant sustained severe and lasting injuries as a direct 

and causal result of her December 20, 2018 employment incident. 

The Board finds that Dr. Bondi’s February 22, 2022 report is sufficient to require further 

development of the medical evidence. Dr. Bondi provided an affirmative opinion on causal 

relationship and a pathophysiological explanation as to how the accepted December 20, 2018 

employment incident caused appellant’s diagnosed medical condition and aggravated her

preexisting right ankle condition. While his report is not completely rationalized to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof to establish her claim, it raises an uncontroverted inference between 

her diagnosed medical conditions and the accepted employment incident and is, therefore, 

sufficient to require OWCP to further develop her claim.13

The Board notes that proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature, nor is OWCP 

a disinterested arbiter. While it is appellant’s burden of proof to establish the claim, OWCP shares 

responsibility in the development of the evidence.14 It has an obligation to see that justice is done.15

The Board will, therefore, remand the case to OWCP for further development of the 

medical evidence. On remand, OWCP shall refer appellant, a statement of accepted facts and the 

medical evidence of record to a specialist in the appropriate field of medicine. The referral 

physician shall provide a rationalized opinion on whether the diagnosed conditions are causally 

related to the accepted employment incident. If the physician opines that the diagnosed conditions 

are not causally related, he or she must explain with rationale how or why his or her opinion differs 

from that of Dr. Bondi. Following this and any further development as deemed necessary, OWCP 

shall issue a de novo decision on appellant’s claim.

13 D.V., Docket No. 21-0383 (issued October 4, 2021); K.S., Docket No. 19-0506 (issued July 23, 2019); H.T., 

Docket No. 18-0979 (issued February 4, 2019);D.W., Docket No. 17-1884 (issued November 8, 2018); JohnJ. 

Carlone, supra note 9.

14 Id.

15 Id.
6

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 24, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this decision of the Board.

Issued: January 9, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board