T.B. and U.S. Postal Service, Albion Post Office, Albion, IN (Board decision, August 14, 2023)

ECAB final decision. The Board affirmed OWCP's December 13, 2022 denial of the occupational disease claim. A party may petition the Board for reconsideration within 30 days of issuance unless this order specifies another period, under 20 C.F.R. § 501.7(a). FECA compensation decisions are generally not subject to court review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b).

Plain-English summary

A letter carrier claimed that years of walking on his route caused right hip and knee pain. OWCP accepted the described work factors but found the medical evidence insufficient to establish a related condition. The only submitted clinical visit summary was unsigned. The Board found that its author could not be identified as a physician, so the summary had no probative value. It affirmed the denial because the record lacked adequate medical evidence of a diagnosed condition connected to the work.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: FECA occupational disease proof, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e).
• Outcome: OWCP's denial affirmed.
• Key point: An unsigned clinical summary cannot establish a medical diagnosis or work related causation.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
T.B., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 23-0499
)
Issued: August 14, 2023
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ALBION POST )
OFFICE, Albion, IN, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 26, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 13, 2022 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 his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted factors of his federal employment.

1
5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2
The Board notes that, following the December 13, 2022 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. Appellant also submitted additional evidence on appeal to the Board. However, 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. FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 21, 2022 appellant, then a 57-year-old city letter carrier, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained right hip and knee pain as a result of factors of his federal employment including wear from walking 12 miles a day for the last 28 years. He noted that he first became aware of his condition and realized its relation to his federal employment on August 5, 2022.

Appellant submitted an unsigned clinical visit summary dated October 20, 2022, which noted an assessment of severe right hip primary osteoarthritis.

In a development letter dated October 26, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to establish his claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. No response was received.

By decision dated December 13, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted factors of his federal employment. 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 FECA has the burden of proof to establish the essential elements of his or her claim, including the fact 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 period of FECA, 3 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 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

3
S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 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 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).

2 compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the identified employment factors. 6

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.7 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factor(s) must be based on a complete factual and medical background. 8 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s specific employment factor(s). 9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted factors of his federal employment.

Appellant submitted an unsigned clinical visit summary dated October 20, 2022. 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. 10 Therefore, this clinical visit summary is of no probative value and is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing a diagnosis of a medical condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment, the Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof. 11

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 his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted factors of his federal employment.

6
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 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996).
8
Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).
9
John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).
10
C.S., Docket No. 20-1354 (issued January 29, 2021); D.T., Docket No. 20-0685 (issued October 8, 2020);
Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988).
11
W.O., Docket No. 22-0418 (issued February 15, 2023).

3
 ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 13, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 14, 2023
Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4