United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PALMER POST 

OFFICE, Palmer, AK, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-1037

Issued: December 6, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 1, 2023 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a June 15, 2023 

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 diagnosed medical 

condition in connection with the accepted January 26, 2023 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 27, 2023 appellant, then a 39-year-old customer service clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 26, 2023 she sustained an injury to her left 

shoulder when picking up three boxes while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of 

the claim form, her supervisor acknowledged that she was injured in the performance of duty, but 

challenged the factual basis of her claim. Appellant stopped work on January 27, 2023, and 

returned to work on January 30, 2023.

In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated January 27, 2023, an advanced practice nurse

with an illegible signature diagnosed muscle strain and advised that appellant could return to work.

In a form report dated January 27, 2023, Dr. Charles S. Blackadar, a Board-certified family 

medicine practitioner, diagnosed left shoulder muscle strain. He indicated, by checking a box 

marked “Yes,” that the left shoulder muscle strain was causally related to appellant lifting boxes 

off of a shelf at work on January 26, 2023. 

In a February 3, 2023 development letter, OWCP notified 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. In a separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested 

additional information from the employing establishment. It afforded both parties 30 days to 

respond.

Appellant subsequently submitted a February 6, 2023 work excuse note signed by

Dr. Kristofer D. Larson, a chiropractor, indicating that she was seen on that date.

In a work status note dated February 6, 2023, Dr. C.S. Blackadar, a Board-certified family 

physician, advised that appellant could return to work with restrictions from February 6 

through 16, 2023. In notes dated February 21 and March 6, 2023, Dr. Blackadar extended her 

work restrictions through March 15, 2023. 

In a March 13, 2023 work restriction note, Iva Milgram, a physician assistant, advised that 

appellant could perform only administrative work with restrictions for four weeks. 

The employing establishment continued to submit factual evidence.

By decision dated March 13, 2023, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding she had not established that the January 26, 2023 incident occurred, as alleged. It 

concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by 

FECA. 

On March 23, 2023 appellant requested reconsideration.
3

In an April 25, 2023 work excuse note, Dr. Curtis Mina, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, held appellant off of work pending a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan.

In a May 22, 2023 work excuse note, Dr. Deryk Anderson, an osteopath specializing in 

orthopedic surgery, held appellant off work until her postoperative evaluation on June 28, 2023. 

By decision dated June 15, 2023, OWCP modified its March 13, 2023 decision to reflect 

that the January 26, 2023employment incident occurred, as alleged. However, the claim remained

denied as appellant had not submitted a medical report, which diagnosed a medical condition in 

connection with the accepted January 26, 2023 employment incident.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

essential elements of their claim, including the fact that the individual is an employee of the United 

States within the meaning of FECA and that the claim was filed within the applicable time 

limitation period 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.3 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.4

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 at the time and place, and in the manner alleged.5 The second component is whether the 

employment incident caused an injury.6

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and 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 incident identified by the employee.8

3

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

ECAB 312 (1988).

4 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).

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

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

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).
4

ANALYSIS

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

condition in connection with the accepted January 26, 2023 employment incident.

Appellant submitted a January 27, 2023 form report by Dr. Blackadar, who diagnosed left 

shoulder muscle strain and indicated with a “Yes” checkmark that the condition was causally 

related to appellant’s claimed employment injury of January 26, 2023 when he lifted boxes off of 

a shelf. 

In light of the diagnosis of left shoulder muscle strain by appellant’s attending physician,

Dr. Blackadar, the Board thus finds that the evidence of record establishes a diagnosis in 

connection with the accepted January 26, 2023 employment incident. The Board further finds, 

however, that the case is not in posture for decision with regard to whether the diagnosed medical 

condition is causally related to the accepted employment incident.

The case must, therefore, be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence with 

regard to the issue of causal relationship.9 Following this and other such further development as 

deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision addressing whether appellant has met her 

burden of proof to establish an injury causally related to the accepted January 26, 2023 

employment incident.

CONCLUSION

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

condition in connection with the accepted January 26, 2023 employment incident. 

9

See C.O., Docket No. 23-0678 (issued September 28, 2023); R.C., Docket No. 22-1099 (issued 

December 28, 2022); F.D., Docket No. 21-1045 (issued December 22, 2021).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 15, 2023 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is reversed.

Issued: December 6, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board