United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

I.N., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Macon, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0466

Issued: July 18, 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

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 2, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 10, 2023 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.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition in connection with the accepted November 18, 2022 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the issuance of OWCP’s January 10, 2023 decision, appellant submitted new 

evidence. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedureprovides: “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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 25, 2022 appellant, then a 57-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 18, 2022 she sustained an injury to her head and 

cervical spine while in the performance of duty. She explained that metal shelving fell on top of 

her head, back of her neck, and shoulders as she was pulling down her cased mail. Appellant 

indicated that she had a previous traumatic work injury related to her head and neck. On the 

reverse side of the claim form, appellant’s supervisor acknowledged that appellant was injured in 

the performance of duty. 

By development letter dated December 7, 2022, OWCP indicated that the evidence 

provided was insufficient to establish that appellant experienced the employment incident alleged 

to have caused the injury. It also noted that there was no diagnosis of any condition, nor a 

physician’s opinion as to how the alleged injury resulted in a medical condition. A questionnaire 

was provided to appellant to substantiate the factual elements of her claim. Further, he was asked 

to provide a narrative report from a physician containing a detailed description of findings and a 

diagnosis, as well as a medical explanation from a physician as to how the work incident caused 

or aggravated a medical condition. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. No response 

was received.

By decision dated January 10, 2023, OWCP found that the November 18, 2022 incident 

had occurred as alleged, but denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that the evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted 

employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish 

an injury as defined by FECA. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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, 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.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 an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

it must first be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There are two components 

involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component is whether the employee actually 

3

Id. at § 8101.

4

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

ECAB 312 (1988).

5 B.H., Docket No. 20-0777 (issued October 21, 2020); 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).
3

experienced the employment incident that allegedly occurred. The second component is whether 

the employment incident caused a personal injury.6

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

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted November 18, 2022 employment incident.

The Board notes that appellant has not submitted any medical evidence in support of her 

claim. As noted above, an employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to 

establish the essential elements of his or her claim. To meet this burden, appellant must submit 

medical evidence that establishes that the employment incident caused a personal injury.

9

 

As the evidence of record is insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in connection with 

the accepted November 18, 2022 employment incident, 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 a diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted November 18, 2022 employment incident.

6 M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); see 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8101(5) (injury defined); 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.5(ee), 10.5(q) (traumatic injury and occupational disease defined, 

respectively).

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

Supra note 3. 
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 10, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 18, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board