United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Birmingham, AL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0111

Issued: December 14, 2023

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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 28, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 27, 2022 merit decision

of the Office of Workers’Compensation Programs(OWCP).1 Pursuantto the FederalEmployees’

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 The Board notes that, following the July 27, 2022 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

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 April 4, 2022 appellant, then a 57-year-old rural carrier associate, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she experienced deterioration of both knees resulting in 

bilateral knee replacements due to factors of her federal employment, including the repetitive use 

of a float ramp.

3

 She noted that, after 18 years, it had become difficult for her to push the weight 

of the float down the ramp while it was loaded with mail and packages and explained thatshe must

also load the mail into her vehicle and then push the float back up the ramp afterward. Appellant 

related that she sometimes performs this task multiple times per day, that her duties require the 

full strength of her legs and knees, and that she believed that she is losing strength in both legs and 

knees. She indicated that she first became aware of her conditions on November 15, 2021 and 

realized their relation to her federal employment on December 9, 2021. Appellant stopped work 

on March 28, 2022.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted December 9, 2021 x-ray images of her knees.

In a May 3, 2022 letter, the employing establishment controverted the claim, noting that 

appellant’s duties included intermittent walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, sorting, 

delivering, driving, and distribution of mail and packages. It asserted that she had not submitted 

medical evidence establishing causal relationship between her knee conditions and the duties of 

her federal employment. 

In a May 17, 2022 development letter, OWCP advised 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 evidence was received.

By decision dated July 27, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she had not 

submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the claimed events occurred as alleged. It noted that 

she did not respond to its developmental questionnaire. Consequently, OWCP found that appellant 

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

3 OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx486. Appellant previously filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) on September 9, 2009 for a left knee injuryunder OWCP File No. xxxxxx343, which was denied 

by decision dated November 2, 2009. She also previously filed an April 15, 2008 Form CA-1 alleging that she 

sustained a leftknee injury under OWCP File No. xxxxxx414. The claims have not been administratively combined 

by OWCP.
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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,5that 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.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 establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit: (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.8

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 experienced deterioration of her knees 

resulting in knee replacement due to factors of her federal employment, including the use of a float 

ramp. By letter dated May 3, 2022, the employing establishment controverted the claim. OWCP, 

in its May 17, 2022 development letter, requested that appellant complete an attached 

questionnaire and provide a detailed factual description of the alleged employment factors. 

Appellant, however, did not respond to OWCP’s May 17, 2022 development letter or otherwise 

provide a factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed 

to a medical condition.9 

4

Supra note 1.

5 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). 

6 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).

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

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

8 T.W., Docket No. 20-0767 (issued January 13, 2021); L.D., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); S.C., 

Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019).

9

Id.; C.H., Docket No. 21-0932 (issued February 10, 2022).
4

As the evidence of record is insufficient to establish that the alleged employment factors 

occurred as described, 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 not met her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged.10

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 27, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: December 14, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

10 Upon return of the case record, OWCP should consider administratively combining the present claim with 

appellant’s additional claim files relating to left knee conditions.