M.B. and U.S. Postal Service, Waldo Post Office (Board decision, March 25, 2025)

ECAB remand decision. The Board reversed OWCP's finding that no condition was diagnosed and returned the claim for causation review; entitlement remains unresolved. 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 mail handler reported neck and back injuries after a work-related motor vehicle accident. The Board found the medical record established a diagnosed condition in connection with the accepted incident. It reversed OWCP's denial and directed further consideration of causation.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
• Outcome: Medical diagnosis established; causation remains for OWCP.
• Key point: A documented diagnosis required review of the medical link to the crash.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
M.B., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 25-0307
)
Issued: March 25, 2025
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, WALDO POST
)
OFFICE, Kansas City, MO, 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 VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 12, 2025 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 15, 2025 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

1
5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2
The Board notes that, following the January 15, 2025 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP.
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.
ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted November 2, 2024 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 2, 2024 appellant, then a 48-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she sustained neck and back injuries in a motor vehicle accident (MVA) that day while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on November 2, 2024.

In a November 2, 2024 statement, appellant asserted that she had been inside her postal delivery vehicle preparing to deliver mail when the vehicle she was operating was struck by another vehicle on the rear end of the driver’s side.3

Thereafter, OWCP received a November 2, 2024 hospital emergency department discharge summary wherein Dr. Robert F. Frobenius, III, an osteopath Board-certified in emergency medicine diagnosed neck and back, strains sustained in an MVA that day.

In a November 12, 2024 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 60 days to submit the necessary evidence.

In a December 3, 2024 report of work status (Form CA-3), the employing establishment indicated that appellant returned to full-duty work on November 26, 2024.

In a follow-up letter dated December 20, 2024, OWCP advised appellant that it had conducted an interim review, and the evidence remained insufficient to establish her claim. It noted that she had 60 days from the November 12, 2024 letter to submit the requested necessary 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 additional evidence was received.

By decision dated January 15, 2025, OWCP accepted that the November 2, 2024 employment incident occurred, as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted employment incident. Consequently, OWCP found that she had not met the requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 4 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 3 OWCP also received a November 2, 2024 police motor vehicle accident report, and a November 2, 2024 statement in which the driver who struck appellant’s delivery vehicle admitted that the incident occurred. 4 Supra note 1.

2
States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time limitation of FECA, 5 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. 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. First, the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the time and place, and in the manner alleged. The second component is whether the employment incident caused an injury. 8

The medical evidence required to establish a 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 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 met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted November 2, 2024 employment incident.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a November 2, 2024 hospital emergency department discharge summary where Dr. Frobenius diagnosed neck and back strains sustained in a motor vehicle accident that day. The Board thus finds that appellant has established a diagnosed

5
F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D. 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 April 24, 2019); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

10
R.H., Docket No. 25-0188 (issued January 31, 2025); A.S., Docket No. 19-1955 (issued April 9, 2020); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

3 medical condition in connection with the accepted November 2, 2024 employment injury.11 Consequently, the case must be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence as to whether appellant has met her burden of proof.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted November 2, 2024 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 15, 2025 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed.

Issued: March 25, 2025
Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

11
G.K., Docket No. 24-0012 (issued March 26, 2024).

4