United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Grand Rapids, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0682

Issued: September 28, 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 April 14, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 28, 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 medical condition

causally related to the accepted January 23, 2023 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the March28, 2023 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 23, 2023 appellant, then a 50-year-old postal distributor, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 23, 2023 she injured her left forearm, wrist, 

and shoulder, and experienced possible nerve damage when she lifted heavy mail trays while in 

the performance of duty. She stopped work on January 24, 2023 and returned on 

January 25, 2023.

3

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a January 23, 2023 note from Dr. Stanley 

Sczecienski, Board-certified in family practice, returning her to work on January 25, 2023. In an 

unsigned referral of even date, Dr. Sczecienski referred her to an orthopedic surgeon and noted

diagnoses of left forearm pain and ulnar neuropathy at elbow of left upper extremity. 

In orders and a discharge note dated February 7, 2023, Dr. Ryan Ouillette, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, noted a diagnosis of cervical spinal stenosis, ordered a magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan and electromyography, and held appellant off work until 

March 7, 2023. 

In a February 8, 2023 statement, appellantnoted that on January 23, 2023 she was working 

on a machine and removed a heavy tray that was overfilled with mail when her forearm appeared 

to become fractured, causing her left pinky and ring fingers to move uncontrollably and causing 

sharp and shooting pains. She related that she notified her supervisors, L.M., E.D., and K.B., of a 

possible fracture several times and left early to seek treatment at an urgent care facility. Appellant

indicated that she experienced neuropathy, tendinitis, tennis elbow, and possible nerve damage, 

and that she expected to be off work until March 7, 2023. 

In a February 24, 2023 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the evidence necessary to establish her claim and provided a factual 

questionnaire for her completion. In a separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested 

that the employing establishment provide additional information, including comments from a 

knowledgeable supervisor. It afforded both parties 30 days to submit the requested evidence.

Thereafter, OWCP received an April 25, 2002 position description describing the duties of 

a mail processing clerk, and an order for durable medical equipment with an illegible date from

Dr. Ouillette.

An unsigned January 23, 2023 after visit summary noted that appellant was treated for left 

forearm pain and ulnar neuropathy at the elbow of her left upper extremity. 

In a February 8, 2023 e-mail, a witness,C.R., related that they were aware that appellant’s

wrist was injured with a pinched nerve, but that appellant never told them that she injured herself 

at work or on the workroom floor. In an e-mail of even date, L.M., an employing establishment 

3 The Board notes that appellant previously filed a Form CA-1 on October 20, 2022 under OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx036,in which she claimed she experienced stress and mental health issues related to her job due to harassment. 

Appellant also filed a Form CA-1 on July 15, 2022 under OWCP File No. xxxxxx715, in which she claimed she 

experienced work-related stress and depression due to harassment and retaliation. The claims have not been 

administratively combined by OWCP.
3

supervisor, related that, on or around January 22 or 23, 2023, appellant informed her that she was 

leaving early to go to urgent care and have her arm checked for a suspected fracture, but appellant

continued loading mail onto the machine and never mentioned an incident at work. In a 

February 9, 2023 statement, K.B., an employing establishment supervisor, related that she did not 

work on January 23, 2023 and did not speak to any employees about accidents or similar incidents. 

In a February 21, 2023 statement, E.D., an employing establishment supervisor, noted that 

at approximately 11:00 a.m. on January 23, 2023 appellant told her that she may have to leave 

early because her elbow was hurting badly and might be fractured. Appellant asked for alternative 

work duties, which E.D. granted and assigned appellant to priority mail. E.D. indicated that 

appellant never mentioned anything else about the situation, never indicated that her condition was 

a work-related issue, and asked another supervisor to leave early to go to urgent care. 

In challenge letters dated February 27 and March 24, 2023, the employing establishment 

controverted the claim, asserting that appellant failed to provide medical evidence containing a

rationalized opinion establishing causal relationship between a diagnosed medical condition and 

her federal employment. It related that she requested to leave work early on January 23, 2023

stating that she believed that her arm was fractured, but she did not indicate that the medical 

appointment was for a work-related injury and continued to work on the machine and loaded mail. 

The employing establishment indicated that Dr. Ouillette’s February 7, 2023 note diagnosed

cervical spinal stenosis, not a traumatic injury to the arm, and that his March 20, 2023 order and 

discharge note provided additional diagnoses that were not related to appellant’s alleged 

January 23, 2023 wrist, forearm, and shoulder injury. 

In a February 27, 2023 response to OWCP’s development letter, the employing 

establishment controverted appellant’s claim, asserting that she did not notify management. It 

explained that, on the date of the accident, she informed management that she needed to leave 

early for a medical appointment, and that she subsequently returned to work with a January 23, 

2023 note indicating that she could return to work on January 25, 2023. The employing 

establishment explained that appellant’s duties included lifting trays to a machine and transferring 

letters and envelopes from the tray to the machine. After the machine sorts the mail, the mail is 

transferred into mail containers, and she must push and pull containers that are both empty and 

full to and from the machine, which is her duty for eight hours per day. The employing 

establishmentfurther noted that appellantis permitted two 15-minute breaks and a 30-minute lunch 

and did not request special accommodations or restrictions. 

In a March 4, 2023 revised statement, appellant noted that while working on a machine on 

January 23, 2023 she lifted and removed a heavy, overfilled tray and felt extreme pain in her 

forearm and shoulder. Her left forearm felt as if she fractured it, and her left pinky and ring fingers 

began moving uncontrollably. Appellant related that sharp, excruciating pain radiated from her 

left shoulder blade to her left wrist, worsening at the forearm, and she is left hand dominant. She 

continued to work until she was able to inform supervisors L.M. and E.D. that she needed to go to 

the hospital and noted that acting supervisor K.B. also knew about the injury. Appellant left early 

to seek treatment at an urgent care where the attending physician indicated neuropathy, tendinitis, 

tennis elbow, and possible nerve damage. She was subsequently treated by Dr. Ouillette, received 

braces for her wrist and forearm, and expected to return to work on March 7, 2023. 
4

In a March 20, 2023 order, Dr. Ouillette referred appellant for physical therapy for 

treatment of diagnoses of cervical spinal stenosis, left tennis elbow, left carpal tunnel syndrome

(CTS), motor vehicle accident, diabetes, and cerebral vascular accident. In a discharge note of 

even date, he noted a diagnosis of left tennis elbow and provided work restrictions beginning

March 24, 2023 of no lifting more than five pounds for the next six weeks. 

By decision dated March 28, 2023, OWCP accepted that the January 23, 2023 employment 

incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that 

the evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between her diagnosed 

medical conditions and the accepted January 23, 2023 employment incident.

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 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 component is whether he or 

she actually experienced the employment incident at the time, 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.8

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

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 9 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 

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.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).

9

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).
5

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment incident 

identified by the claimant.10

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted January 23, 2023 employment incident.

Appellant submitted a January 23, 2023 note from Dr. Sczecienski returning her to work 

and noted a diagnoses of left forearm pain and ulnar neuropathy at the elbow of her left upper 

extremity. She also submitted orders and a discharge note dated February 7, 2023 in which

Dr. Ouillette diagnosed cervical spinal stenosis and held her off work until March 7, 2023. 

Similarly, in a March 20, 2023 order and discharge note, Dr. Ouillette provided work restrictions, 

referred appellant for physical therapy, and diagnosed cervical spinal stenosis, left tennis elbow, 

left CTS, motor vehicle accident, diabetes, and cerebral vascular accident. In an order of illegible

date, he ordered durable medical equipment. However, this evidence did not include an opinion 

relative to causal relationship. The Board has held that medical evidence which does not offer an 

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

causal relationship. As such, this evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.11

OWCP also received an unsigned January 23, 2023 after visit summary and referral in 

which Dr. Sczecienski diagnosed left forearm pain and ulnar neuropathy at the elbow of the left 

upper extremity. However, the Board has held that reports that are unsigned or bear an illegible 

signature lack proper identification and cannot be considered probative medical evidence as the 

author cannot be identified as a physician.12

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing a 

medical condition causally related to the accepted January 23, 2023 employment incident, the 

Board finds that she 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 medical

condition causally related to the accepted January 23, 2023 employment incident.

10 A.S., Docket No. 19-1955 (issued April 9, 2020); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

11 See D.Y., Docket No. 20-0112 (issued June 25, 2020); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., 

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

12 L.B., Docket No. 21-0353 (issued May 23, 2022); T.D., Docket No. 20-0835 (issued February 2, 2021);Merton J. 

Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 28, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 28, 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