United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, WEST ADAMS POST 

OFFICE, Los Angeles, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0257

Issued: September 9, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 3, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 5, 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 an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 28, 2021 appellant, then a 60-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed de Quervain’s tenosynovitis in her right wrist due 

to the factors of her federal employment, including repetitive motions associated with delivering 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

mail. She noted that she first became aware of her condition and realized its relation to her federal 

employment on February 9, 2021. Appellant did not stop work. 

In an amended Form CA-2 dated June 18, 2021, appellant amended the date that she first

realized that her condition was caused or aggravated by her federal employment from February 9 

to April 23, 2021.

Appellant submitted an undated medical report containing an illegible signature, which 

provided a diagnosis of right wrist pain due to de Quervain’s tenosynovitis.

In a development letter dated June 24, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

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

detailed factual description of the alleged employment factors, and provided a questionnaire for 

her completion. In a separate development letter of even date, OWCP also requested that the 

employing establishment provide comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding the 

accuracy of appellant’s statements. It afforded both parties 30 days to respond. 

In a July 27, 2021 response, the employing establishment noted that appellant’s official 

duties consist of casing and fingering mail for one hour per day and scanning letters and parcels 

for six hours per day, five days a week. It further explained that she reaches while casing mail and 

is afforded rest breaks during the workday. No additional evidence was received from appellant.

By decision dated August 5, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that she had not established that the alleged factors of her federal employment occurred as 

described. Consequently, it found that she had not met the requirements to establish an injury as 

defined by FECA.

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 

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

2

Supra note 1.

3 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued December 13, 2019); 

Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

4 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).

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).
3

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, an employee must submit the following: (1) a factual statement identifying 

employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the 

disease or condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or 

condition for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the 

diagnosed condition is causally related to the identified employment factors.

6

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged.

In her Form CA-2, appellant indicated that she developed de Quervain’s tenosynovitis in 

her right wrist due to repetitive movements associated with delivering mail. OWCP, in its June 24, 

2021 development letter, requested that she complete an attached questionnaire and provide a 

detailed factual description of the alleged employment factors. Appellant, however, did not 

respond to OWCP’s June 24, 2021 development questionnaire.

Appellant has not provided a sufficient description of the alleged employment factors. The 

Board, therefore, finds that she has not met her burden of proof. 7 As appellant has not met her 

burden of proof to establish that an injury occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged, it is 

unnecessary to address the medical evidence of record regarding causal relationship. 8

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 an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged. 

6

See A.S., Docket No. 19-1766 (issued March 26, 2020); R.G., Docket No. 19-0233 (issued July 16, 2019). See 

also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 

ECAB 345 (1989).

7 H.D., Docket No. 15-1698 (issued May 4, 2016).

8

J.C., Docket No. 19-0542 (issued August14, 2019); see M.P., Docket No. 15-0952 (issued July 23, 2015); Alvin V. 

Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 5, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 9, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board