M.M. and U.S. Postal Service, Elmwood Park Station (Board decision, January 23, 2025)

ECAB final decision. The Board affirmed OWCP’s 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 postal employee claimed a medical condition from accepted work factors. OWCP twice requested additional medical evidence, but the record received no response establishing a diagnosis. The Board found there was no medical evidence of a diagnosed condition connected to the work factors. It affirmed the denial.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
• Outcome: Occupational disease claim denied.
• Key point: The record lacked a medical diagnosis for the claimed condition.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
M.M., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 25-0201
)
Issued: January 23, 2025
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ELMWOOD PARK )
STATION, Omaha, NE, Employer
)
__________ )

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 December 25, 2024 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 28, 2024 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 October 28, 2024 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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 August 14, 2024 appellant, then a 33-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained tendinitis causally related to factors of his federal employment. He explained that his route required significant walking and that he began to feel pain in his ankle and knee. Appellant noted that he became aware of his condition on April 17, 2024 and realized its relationship to his federal employment on July 9, 2024. The employing establishment indicated that he was last exposed to the conditions alleged to have caused his injury on August 13, 2024.

In a development letter dated August 26, 2024, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 60 days to submit the necessary evidence.

In a follow-up letter dated October 2, 2024, OWCP advised appellant that it had conducted an interim review, and the evidence remained insufficient to establish his claim. It noted that he had 60 days from the August 26, 2024 letter to submit the requested supporting evidence. OWCP further advised that if the evidence was not received during this time, it would issue a decision based on the evidence contained in the record.

No further evidence was received.

By decision dated October 28, 2024, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim.
It accepted the alleged employment factors as described; however, the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosis in connection with the accepted employment factors. OWCP 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 3 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 filed within the applicable time limitation period of FECA, 4 that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to

3
Supra note 1.
4
S.M., Docket No. 21-0937 (issued December 21, 2021); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

2 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

In an occupational disease claim, appellant’s burden of proof requires submission of the following: (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 employment factors identified by the employee. 7

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.8 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, 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 the specific employment factors identified by the claimant.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.

In development letters August 26 and October 2, 2024, OWCP advised appellant that additional evidence was needed to establish his claim. However, no response was received.

As the medical evidence of record is devoid of medical evidence establishing a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted employment factors, the Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof. 10

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.

5
R.W., Docket No. 23-0527 (issued December 29, 2023); J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018);
R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988). 6 M.T., Docket No. 20-1814 (issued June 24, 2022); 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). 7 G.J., Docket No. 23-0577 (issued August 28, 2023); S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008). 8 K.R., Docket No. 21-0822 (issued June 28, 2022); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). 9 G.S., Docket No. 22-0036 (issued June 29, 2022); M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008).
10
See J.W., Docket No. 24-0028 (issued December 20, 2024); D.S., Docket No. 25-0034 (issued November 18, 2024); A.C., Docket No. 22-1195 (issued January 18, 2023); M.D., Docket No. 18-0195 (issued September 13, 2018).

3
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.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 28, 2024 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 23, 2025
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

4