D.L. and U.S. Postal Service, West Sacramento 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 expeditor attributed foot and ankle problems to standing and walking on hard floors. The Board found medical evidence diagnosing bilateral pes planus and a left tibialis posterior tendon tear. It returned the claim for OWCP to decide whether work factors caused those conditions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
• Outcome: Foot and ankle diagnoses established; causation remanded.
• Key point: Diagnoses were documented, but work causation still required review.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
D.L., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 25-0333
)
Issued: March 25, 2025
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, WEST SACRAMENTO )
POST OFFICE, West Sacramento, CA, 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
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 11, 2024 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 30, 2024 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 1 Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case. 3

1
The Board notes that during the pendency of this appeal, OWCP issued a November 15, 2024 merit decision denying modification of the July 30, 2024 decision. OWCP’s November 15, 2024 decision is null and void as the Board and OWCP may not simultaneously exercise jurisdiction over the same underlying issue in a case on appeal. 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c)(3), 10.626; see e.g., M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); Lawrence Sherman, 55 ECAB 359, 360 n.4 (2004); Douglas E. Billings, 41 ECAB 880 (1990). 2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
3
The Board notes that following the July 30, 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.
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.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 13, 2024 appellant, then a 43-year-old general expeditor, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sprained his left ankle and tore his ankle tendon due to factors of his federal employment, including walking and standing on hard-surfaced industrial floors. He indicated that he first became aware of this condition and its connection to his federal employment on June 20, 2023. Appellant stopped work on November 2, 2023, and returned to work on March 22, 2024.

In a May 22, 2023 after-visit summary note, Dr. Alexandra Nicole Mullen, a physician specializing in family medicine, diagnosed bilateral pes planus.

In after-visit summary notes dated June 20 and September 26, 2023, Dr. Alexander Lister, a podiatrist, diagnosed bilateral pes planus.

In after-visit summary notes dated October 13 and November 1, 2023, Dr. Lister diagnosed nontraumatic tear of left tibialis posterior tendon.

Unsigned medical reports from a medical facility dated November 7, 17, December 1, 2023, January 5, February 6, 28, March 20, and April 3, 2024, indicated that appellant underwent left foot posterior tibial tendon repair with Kidner procedure on November 2, 2023.

Dr. Lister, in progress notes dated May 1, 2024, related that appellant underwent left foot posterior tibial tendon repair with Kidner procedure on November 2, 2023. He recounted that appellant denied trauma to his foot. Dr. Lister also noted that appellant’s foot swelled if he bore weight for longer periods of time.

In a development letter dated May 17, 2024, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish his claim. It informed him of the medical and factual evidence required to establish his claim. OWCP afforded appellant 60 days to provide the requested evidence. By separate letter of the even date, it also requested additional information from the employing establishment, including comments from a knowledgeable supervisor. OWCP afforded the employing establishment 30 days to respond.

OWCP subsequently received an October 19, 2023 note, Dr. Dai Trang Tunguyen, a podiatrist, who advised that appellant was scheduled for foot surgery on November 2, 2023 and would be off work until March 4, 2024.

In a February 28, 2024 note, Dr. Lister related that appellant was receiving care for his left lower extremity and was scheduled to return to work in March 2024. He recommended restrictions for appellant’s return to work.

In a follow-up development letter dated June 13, 2024, OWCP advised appellant that it had conducted an interim review, and the evidence remained insufficient to establish h is claim. It 2 noted that he had 60 days from the May 17, 2024 development 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 further evidence was received.

By decision dated July 30, 2024, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that he failed to submit any medical evidence containing a medical condition diagnosed in connection with the accepted employment factors. 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 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 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 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 compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is casually related to the identified employment factors.8

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion evidence to resolve the issue.9 The opinion of the physician must be based upon a complete factual and medical background, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by

4
Supra note 2.
5
See C.M., Docket No. 25-0252 (issued February 21, 2025); S.F., Docket No. 23-0264 (issued July 5, 2023); 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.W., Docket No. 20-0767 (issued January 13, 2021); L.D., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019). 9 I.J., Docket No. 19-1343 (issued February 26, 2020); T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

3 medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment incident.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted factors of his federal employment.

OWCP has accepted that appellant’s federal employment factors included walking and standing on hard-surfaced industrial floors. In after-visit summary notes dated October 13 and November 1, 2023, Dr. Lister diagnosed nontraumatic tear of left tibialis posterior tendon. In a progress note dated May 1, 2024, he related that appellant underwent left foot posterior tibial tendon repair with Kidner procedure on November 2, 2023. Dr. Lister explained that appellant’s foot swelled if he bore weight for longer periods of time. The Board finds that Dr. Lister’s reports are sufficient to establish diagnosed medical conditions of bilateral pes planus and left tibialis posterior tendon tear with a mechanism of injury consistent with accepted factors of appellant’s employment. The Board also finds that Dr. Mullen diagnosed bilateral pes planus.

As the medical evidence of record establishes a diagnosed medical condition, the case must be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence with regard to the issue of causal relationship. 11 Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish diagnosed medical conditions of bilateral pes planus and left tibialis posterior tendon tear in connection with the accepted factors of employment.

10
R.E., Docket No. 25-0179 (issued January 24, 2025); D.C., Docket No. 19-1093 (issued June 25, 2020); see Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).
11
See S.R., Docket No. 22-0453 (issued March 2, 2023); S.A., Docket No. 20-1498 (issued March 11, 2021).

4
ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 30, 2024 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: March 25, 2025
Washington, DC

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

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

5