United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, LOUISVILLE POST 

OFFICE, Louisville, KY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0868

Issued: October 31, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 May 17, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 6, 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.

ISSUE

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

condition causally related to the accepted May 11, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 14, 2020 appellant, then a 42-year-old postal collection and delivery employee, 

filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 11, 2020 she rolled her right ankle

when she stepped into a hole when crossing a yard while in the performance of duty. She stopped 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

work on that date. Appellant’s supervisor acknowledged on the claim form that appellant was 

injured in the performance of duty. 

In a report dated May 12, 2020, Dr. David T. Schulz, a family medicine specialist, 

diagnosed right foot sprain. Appellant told Dr. Schulz that she injured her right foot on May 11, 

2020 when she stepped in a hole/divot while on her route. On physical examination of the right 

foot, Dr. Schulz observed trace swelling to the dorsum of the forefoot, minor tenderness to 

palpation over the edema, and minimal discomfort with dorsi and plantarflexion of the toes. 

Review of x-rays demonstrated no acute abnormality. 

Appellant submitted duty status reports (Forms CA-17) with illegible signatures dated 

May 12, June 22, and July 13, 2020. She also submitted a duty status report dated May 11, 2020 

from an advanced practice registered nurse, who noted that appellant had sustained a right foot

injury when stepping into a hole. 

In a report dated June 22, 2020, Dr. Schulz diagnosed a closed displaced fracture of the 

third metatarsal bone of the right foot with routine healing. 

On July 13, 2020 Dr. Schulz indicated that he examined appellant in follow-up for her 

fracture of the third metatarsal bone of the right foot. He noted a date of injury of May 11, 2020. 

Dr. Schulz noted that her foot was healing and that though she was not ready for full-time work he 

would decrease her limitations. The report included the results of an x-ray of appellant’s right foot 

obtained on July 13, 2020, which demonstrated a fracture of the third metatarsal with subtle 

malalignment and angulation medially and dorsally.

In a development letter dated August 4, 2020, 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.

Appellant submitted a May 11, 2020 report by Nathalie Weis, a nurse practitioner, who 

noted that appellant had decreased range of motion, tenderness, and swelling of the right foot. 

Appellant’s diagnosis was listed as contusion of the right foot, initial encounter. 

In a report dated June 15, 2020, Dr. Schulz stated that appellant had returned to the clinic 

after a month of working following her foot injury. Appellant told Dr. Schulz that she had no 

reinjury since her initial injury in May 2020. On physical examination of the right foot, he 

observed swelling and tenderness along the dorsum. Review of x-rays indicated a healing fracture 

of the third metatarsal. Dr. Schulz diagnosed right foot strain, right foot pain, and a closed 

displaced fracture of the third metatarsal bone of the right foot with routine healing. He

recommended use of a cast boot and work limitations. 

On August 14, 2020 Dr. Schulz explained that appellant worked as a mail carrier on 

May 11, 2020 and stepped into a hole while in the performance of duty. Radiographs obtained on 

that date did not demonstrate a fracture and she was diagnosed with foot strain. Appellant returned 

to the clinic on June 15, 2020 with increasing foot pain and pain with walking. She denied reinjury. 

An x-ray obtained on that date demonstrated a nondisplaced fracture of the fifth metatarsal. 

Appellant was placed in a cast boot at that time and placed on work limitations due to the fracture. 

She returned to full-duty work on August 17, 2020. Dr. Schulz noted that if appellant had a stress 
3

fracture, it would not have been demonstrated on x-ray. He stated that she had a history of fracture 

with similar history in the past and had continued to work with increasing discomfort after 

May 11, 2020. Dr. Schulz opined that the performance of her federal employment with a possible 

stress fracture could have easily, with time, developed into a fracture. 

By decision dated September 8, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she 

had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish that the accepted May 11, 2020 

employment incident caused or aggravated her diagnosed right foot conditions. It concluded, 

therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury and/or a medical condition 

causally related to the accepted employment incident. 

OWCP subsequently received additional medical evidence. In an August 3, 2020 report, 

Dr. Schulz followed up with appellant for her diagnosed nondisplaced fifth metatarsal fracture. 

Appellant stated that she had no significant pain, numbness, or tingling of the foot and continued 

to work using a cast boot. An x-ray of her right foot obtained on that date demonstrated a fracture 

deformity of the distal third metatarsal shaft with bulky callus formation around the fracture, which 

remained incompletely united with persistent mild apex plantar-lateral angulation. Appellant’s

bones were demineralized and no definite additional fracture was identified. 

In a report dated August 13, 2020, Dr. Schulz assessed appellant for her diagnosed 

nondisplaced fifth metatarsal fracture and noted that she had been slowly converting from a cast 

boot to regular footwear as she stated she was doing better. Appellant stated that she had no pain 

in the foot and no pain converting to regular footwear. Physical examination of the right foot was 

normal. Dr. Schulz released her to work full duty. 

On September 7, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. 

By decision dated December 6, 2021, OWCP denied modification of the September 8, 

2020 decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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,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 

2

Id.

3 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). 
4

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 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 comp onent is that the 

employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that 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.6 

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

condition and an employment incident 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 factors 

identified by the employee.8

Pursuant to OWCP’s procedures, no development of a claim is necessary where the 

condition reported is a minor one which can be identified on visual inspection by a lay person (e.g., 

burn, laceration, insect sting or animal bite), where the injury was witnessed or reported promptly 

and no dispute exists, and when no time was lost from work due to disability. In cases where there 

is a serious injury (motor vehicle accidents, stabbings, shootings, etc.), the employing 

establishment does not dispute the facts of the case, and there are no questionable circumstances, 

the case may be accepted for a minor condition (such as a laceration in a stabbing case) without a 

medical report, while simultaneously developing the case for other more serious conditions. This 

is true even if there is lost time due to such a serious injury.9

4 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020); 

James E.Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

5 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). 

6 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).

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

See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Development of Claims, Chapter 2.800.6(a) 

(June 2011); id. at Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3(c) (January 2013). See also R.H., Docket No. 20-1684 

(issued August 27, 2021);A.J., Docket No. 20-0484 (issued September 2, 2020).
5

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has established a right foot contusion causally related to the 

accepted May 11, 2020 employment incident.

Appellant has alleged and OWCP has accepted that she rolled her right foot on May 11, 

2020 when she stepped into a hole while delivering mail. The evidence of record establishes that 

appellant was initially seen on May 11, 2020 by a nurse practitioner, Nathalie Weis. Ms. Weis

noted that appellant had decreased range of motion, tenderness, and swelling of the right foot.

Appellant’s diagnosis was listed as contusion of the right foot, initial encounter. The Board thus 

finds that the evidence of record establishes that the accepted May 11, 2020 employment incident 

resulted in a visible injury of right foot contusion.10 The Board will, therefore, reverse the decision 

in part and remand the case for payment of medical expenses and wage-loss compensation for any 

attendant disability due to appellant’s accepted contusion.11

The Board further finds, however, that appellant has not established additional conditions 

as causally related to the accepted employment injury. 

In a report dated May 12, 2020, Dr. Schulz diagnosed right foot sprain. Appellant returned 

to the clinic on June 15, 2020 with increasing foot pain and pain with walking. She denied reinjury. 

An x-ray obtained on that date demonstrated a nondisplaced fracture of the fifth metatarsal. 

Dr. Schulz noted that appellant stepped into a hole and that if there was a stress fracture, it would 

not have been demonstrated on x-ray. He stated that she had a history of fracture with similar 

history in the past and had continued to work with increasing discomfort after May 11, 2020. In a 

report dated June 22, 2020, Dr. Schulz diagnosed a closed displaced fracture of the third metatarsal 

bone of the right foot with routine healing. On July 13, 2020 he examined appellant for a follow

up on her diagnosis of third metatarsal bone of the right foot with routine healing. Dr. Schulz

noted a date of injury of May 11, 2020. On August 3, 2020 he followed up with appellant for her 

diagnosed nondisplaced fifth metatarsal fracture. An x-ray of appellant’s right foot obtained on 

that date demonstrated a fracture deformity of the distal third metatarsal shaft with bulky callus 

formation around the fracture, which remained incompletely united with persistent mild apex 

plantar-lateral angulation. Her bones were demineralized and no definite additional fracture was 

identified. In a report dated August 13, 2020, Dr. Schulz assessed appellant for her diagnosed 

nondisplaced fifth metatarsal fracture. Physical examination of the right foot was normal. 

Dr. Schulz released her to work full duty. None of these reports, however, provide an opinion on 

causal relationship. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion 

regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal 

10 See B.W. Docket No. 22-0134 (issued May 24, 2022) (the Board accepted a visible injury of lower back/buttocks 

contusion as causally related to the accepted employment incident); S.K., Docket No. 18-1411 (issued July 22, 2020) 

(the Board accepted visible injuries including bruises as causally related to the accepted employment incident).

11 See W.R., Docket No. 20-1101 (issued January 26, 2021);A.J., Docket No. 20-0484 (issued September 2, 2020).
6

relationship.12 This evidence is therefore of no probative value and insufficient to establish 

expansion of the claim.

On August 14, 2020 Dr. Schulz explained that appellant worked as a mail carrier on 

May 11, 2020 and stepped into a hole while in the performance of duty. Radiographs obtained on 

that date did not demonstrate a fracture and she was diagnosed with foot strain. Dr. Schulz opined 

that the performance of her federal employment with a possible stress fracture could have easily, 

with time, developed into a fracture. The Board has held that the opinion of a physician supporting 

causal relationship must not be speculative or equivocal. 13 The Board thus finds that the 

August 14, 2020 opinion of Dr. Schulz is of limited probative value and is insufficient to establish 

expansion of the claim.

Appellant submitted duty status reports with illegible signatures dated May 12, June 22, 

and July 13, 2020. The Board has held that medical evidence containing an illegible signature or 

which is unsigned has no probative value, as it is not established that the author is a physician.14 

As such, these duty status reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish causal relationship between 

any additional diagnosed right foot conditions and the accepted May 11, 2020 employment injury, 

the Board finds that appellant has not met her 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 established a right foot contusion causally related to the 

accepted May 11, 2020 employment incident. The Board further finds that she has not established 

additional conditions as causally related to the accepted May 11, 2020 employment injury. 

12 D.C., Docket No. 19-1093 (issued June 25, 2020); see L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018); D.K., 

Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

13 P.W., Docket No. 20-0407 (issued July 17, 2020); Ricky S. Storms, 52 ECAB 349 (2001).

14 See Z.G., 19-0967 (issued October 21, 2019); see R.M., 59 ECAB 690 (2008); Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 

575 (1988); Bradford L. Sullivan, 33 ECAB 1568 (1982).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 6, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed in part and affirmed in part. The case is remanded 

for further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: October 31, 2022

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