United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Oklahoma City, OK, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1238

Issued: May 19, 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 August 8, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 12, 2022 merit decision

and a May 18, 2022 nonmerit 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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted December 22, 2021 employment incident; and 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the May18, 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

(2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her 

claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 28, 2021 appellant, then a 46-year-old mail clerk, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 22, 2021 she injured her head and neck due to 

traumatic force when a box fell from a machine onto her head while in the performance of duty.

She stopped work on December 22, 2021.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a December 23, 2021 work excuse note from 

an unidentified healthcare provider noting that she was treated that day and excusing her from 

work. 

In treatment notes dated December 30, 2021 and January 16, 2022, Dr. Derek Lewis, a 

family practitioner, held appellant off work from December 30, 2021 to January 16, 2022, and 

from January 26, 2022 until after physical therapy. He provided work restrictions of no lifting 

over 20 pounds. 

In a February 24, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish her

claim and afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

Thereafter, appellant submitted a note with an illegible date from Dr. Lewis holding her 

off work until March 21, 2022 and providing work restrictions. 

In a December 30, 2021 visit note, Dr. Lewis noted that appellant reported that a box fell 

on her head while at work on December 22, 2021 causing neck pain and a headache. He assessed 

neck pain, unspecified headache, and other chronic pain, and issued a referral for physical therapy. 

In a February 25, 2022 note, Dr. Lewis related that appellant presented with neck pain that 

radiated down her neck and lower back that began two months ago after an automobile accident. 

He indicated that she also experienced swelling in her arms, headaches, and was involved in an

accident a few days prior that caused arm pain. Dr. Lewis assessed right side neck pain and 

prescribed medication. 

A March 23, 2022 report of work status (Form CA-3) noted that appellant stopped work 

on December 22, 2021 and returned full-time to modified-duty work with restrictions on 

March 21, 2022. 

By decision dated April 12, 2022, OWCP accepted that the December 22, 2021

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

finding that she had not submitted medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis from a 

qualified physician in connection with the accepted December 22, 2021 employment incident. 

Consequently, OWCP found that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as 

defined by FECA.
3

On May 12, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration of the April 12, 2022 decision. In a 

May 5, 2022 statement in support of her request, she asserted that she did not receive any 

documentation to provide to her physician. Appellant noted that she experienced constant neck 

pain radiating down her back.

By decision dated May 18, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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,4that 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.5 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.6

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 that the 

employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that 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.7

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

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 8 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 

3

Supra note 1.

4 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). 

5 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).

6 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).

7 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).

8

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).
4

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

identified by the employee.9

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

medical condition in connection with the accepted December 22, 2021 employment incident. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a December 30, 2021 note from Dr. Lewis 

assessing neck pain, unspecified headache, and other chronic pain, as well as a February 25, 2022 

note assessing right side neck pain. The Board has consistently held that pain and headache are

symptoms and not a compensable medical diagnosis.10 A medical report lacking a firm diagnosis 

is of no probative value.11 Accordingly, Dr. Lewis’ reports are insufficient to satisfy appellant’s 

burden of proof.12

Similarly, appellant submitted work excuse notes dated December 30, 2021 and 

January 16, 2022, in which Dr. Lewis held her off work and provided work restrictions. However,

Dr. Lewis did not provide a diagnosis. The Board has held that a medical report is of no probative 

value if it does not provide a firm diagnosis of a particular medical condition.13 As Dr. Lewis did 

not diagnose a medical condition in these notes, this evidence is also insufficient to establish a 

diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted December 22, 2021 employment 

incident.14

The remaining medical evidence of record includes a December 23, 2021 work excuse note 

from an unidentified healthcare provider. The Board has held that reports that are unsigned or bear 

an illegible signature cannot be considered probative medical evidence as the author cannot be 

identified as a physician.15 Thus, this report has no probative value and is insufficient to establish 

the claim.

9

See S.A., Docket No. 20-1498 (issued March 11, 2021); A.H., Docket No. 20-0730 (issued October 27, 2020);

B.C., Docket No. 20-0079 (issued October 16, 2020).

10 J.P., Docket No. 20-0381 (issued July 28, 2020); S.L., Docket No. 19-1536 (issued June 26, 2020); D.Y., Docket 

No. 20-0112 (issued June 25, 2020), DeborahL. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340 (2003). See also Larry M. Leudtke,Docket 

03-1564 (issued September 2, 2003) (where the Board found thatheadachedescribed a symptomand did not constitute 

a firm diagnosis of a medical condition).

11 J.P., id.; R.L., Docket No. 20-0284 (issued June 30, 2020).

12 R.H., Docket No. 21-1382 (issued March 7, 2022); S.E., Docket No. 21-0666 (issued December 28, 2021).

13 A.R., Docket No. 19-1560 (issued March 2, 2020); V.B., Docket No. 19-0643 (issued September 6, 2019).

14 Id.

15 See T.P., Docket No. 21-0868 (issued December 21, 2021); R.L., supra note 11; M.A., Docket No. 19-1551 

(issued April 30, 2020); T.O., Docket No. 19-1291 (issued December 11, 2019); Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 

575 (1988).
5

As appellant has not submitted medical evidence establishing a diagnosed medical 

condition in connection with the accepted December 22, 2021 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.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Section 8128(a) of FECA does not entitle a claimant to review of an OWCP decision as a 

matter of right.16 OWCP has discretionary authority in this regard and has imposed certain 

limitations in exercising its authority.17 One such limitation is that the request for reconsideration 

must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of the decision for which review is sought.18 

A timely application for reconsideration, including all supporting documents, must set forth 

arguments and contain evidence that either: (i) shows that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law; (ii) advances a relevant legal argument not previously 

considered by OWCP; or (iii) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously 

considered by OWCP.19 When a timely application for reconsideration does not meet at least one 

of the above-noted requirements, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for a review on the merits.20

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the 

merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

Appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of 

law and did not advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. In support 

of her request, she submitted a May 5, 2022 statement describing her symptoms and asserting that 

she did not receive documentation to provide to her physician regarding her claim. The underlying 

issue was whether appellant had provided sufficient proof from a qualified physician of a medical 

diagnosis made in connection with the accepted December 22, 2021 employment incident. 

16 This section provides in pertinent part: “[t]he Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against payment 

of compensation at any time on [his/her] own motion or on application.” 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

17 20 C.F.R. § 10.607.

18 Id. at § 10.607(a). For merit decisions issued on or after August 29, 2011, a request forreconsideration must be 

received by OWCP within one year of OWCP decision for which review is sought. Federal (FECA) Procedure 

Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 (February 2020). Timeliness is determined by the 

document receipt date of the request for reconsideration as indicated by the received date in the Integrated Federal 

Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS). Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4b.

19 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3).

20 Id. at § 10.608(a), (b).
6

Therefore, the Board finds her argument irrelevant.21 Consequently, appellant was not entitled to 

a review of the merits based on the first and second above-noted requirements under 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3).

Further, appellant did not submit any additional evidence with her May 12, 2022 request 

for reconsideration. Because she did not provide any relevant and pertinent new evidence not 

previously considered by OWCP, she is not entitled to a review of the merits based on the third 

requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).22

The Board, accordingly, finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.23

CONCLUSION

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

medical condition in connection with the accepted December 22, 2021 employment incident. The 

Board further finds that OWCP properly denied herrequest for reconsideration of the merits of her 

claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

21 M.M., Docket Nos. 21-0482 & 21-1051 (issued April 19, 2023).

22 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3)(iii); see also S.H., Docket No. 19-1897 (issued April21, 2020); M.K., Docket No. 18-

1623 (issued April 10, 2019); Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224-25 (1979).

23 See D.M., Docket No. 18-1003 (issued July 16, 2020); D.S., Docket No. 18-0353 (issued February 18, 2020); 

Susan A. Filkins, 57 ECAB 630 (2006) (when a request for reconsideration does not meet at least one of the three 

requirements enumerated under section 10.606(b), OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without reopening 

the case for a review on the merits).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 12 and May 18, 2022 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: May 19, 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