United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

N.I., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

CUSTOMS & BORDER PATROL, 

West Palm Beach, FL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1439 

Issued: October 15, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 4, 2014 appellant, through his attorney, filed a timely appeal of a March 18, 

2014 Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’ (OWCP) merit decision denying his claim for 

employment-related injury. Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1 (FECA) and 

20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof in establishing that he 

sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty on July 25, 2012, as alleged. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 23, 2013 appellant, then a 45-year-old marine interdiction agent, filed a 

traumatic injury claim alleging that on July 25, 2012 he sprained his shoulders while boarding a 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

vessel due to the pounding and bouncing of the boat. He stated that he was holding the upper rail 

with both arms and sustained acute trauma to his neck and shoulders. The employing 

establishment indicated that appellant was not injured in the performance of duty and stated that 

appellant reported on an agency memorandum that the incident occurred on July 25, 2012 while 

undergoing patrol. 

In a letter dated June 5, 2013, OWCP requested additional factual and medical evidence 

in support of appellant’s claim including a detailed narrative statement describing the alleged 

employment incident and a medical report including a diagnosed condition and a statement that 

the incident resulted in the diagnosed condition. 

Appellant submitted reports from Dr. Rena R. Amro, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, dated October 19 and 26, and November 26, 2012 which are largely illegible. 

Dr. Amro stated that in July 2012 he reinjured his cervical area while responding to a boat chase 

in rough waters. She diagnosed possible cervical radiculopathy and work-related injury. On 

February 13, 2013 Dr. Amro noted appellant’s onset of neck and left shoulder pain in July 2012. 

She stated that he was having pain in the left shoulder that was related to his injury on 

July 24, 2012. Dr. Amro diagnosed cervicalgia, degeneration of the cervical intervertebral disc, 

pain in the joint involving the shoulder region and disorders of the bursa and tendons of the 

shoulder region. On x-rays she identified acromioclavicular joint separation with arthropathy 

and calcification. In reports dated April 12, May 1, 14, and June 3, 2013, Dr. Amro repeated her 

diagnoses. She stated that on May 14, 2013 appellant believed that his shoulder pain was due to 

his recent accident. In her June 26, 2013 note, Dr. Amro indicated that she first treated appellant 

on October 12, 2012 and that he described crossing to another boat and grabbing a railing on 

July 25, 2012 which resulted in neck and shoulder pain. 

Appellant underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan on May 6, 2013 which 

demonstrated a tear of the superior labrum and biceps labral complex with tendinosis and 

probable tear of the intra-articular portion of the biceps tendon. He also demonstrated tendinosis 

of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons with partial tearing of the supraspinatus tendon as 

well as moderate degenerative changes of the acromioclavicular joint and impingement. 

In a telephone memorandum, OWCP indicated that appellant had a claim accepted for a 

neck condition, but that his shoulders were not part of that claim. 

Appellant completed a narrative statement dated June 13, 2013 and stated his injury 

occurred while he was in an interceptor vessel and boarding another vessel. He was uncertain 

whether the incident occurred on July 24 or 25, 2012. Appellant stated that following this 

incident he experienced neck and shoulder discomfort. He had a cervical condition prior to this 

incident. Appellant stated that he believed that his current condition was the result of his 

cervical condition until his physician identified a shoulder injury. On May 21, 2013 he 

confirmed with his supervisor that he was on a float on July 25, 2012 and that his injury 

therefore occurred on this date. 

In a separate statement dated July 10, 2013, appellant described the events of July 25, 

2012 and stated that while in the performance of his job duties he was boarding another vessel 

and while crossing from the employing establishment boat to the suspect’s boat he grabbed the 
3

upper rail on the top of the boat and immediately felt discomfort in the left side of his neck and 

shoulder blade. He continued to perform his duties. Appellant noted that he had a previous neck 

injury on September 23, 2009, OWCP File No. xxxxxx738, and thought that the July 25, 2012 

incident was a minor recurrence of his neck injury. He reopened his neck claim in accordance 

with the advice of his supervisor. After appellant’s previous attending physician moved away, 

he sought treatment with Dr. Amro in October 2012. Dr. Amro diagnosed a left shoulder 

condition. 

By decision dated July 19, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that he had not 

established that the injury occurred at the time, place and in the manner alleged. It noted that 

there was no contemporaneous medical evidence or medical evidence providing a consistent date 

of injury and that he was unclear when the employment incident occurred. Counsel requested an 

oral hearing on July 23, 2013 before an OWCP hearing representative. 

On August 15, 2013 Dr. Amro performed a surgical arthroscopy of the left shoulder to 

repair a left shoulder labral tear, left shoulder superior labrum anterior and posterior lesion and 

left shoulder rotator cuff partial tear. 

Appellant testified at the oral hearing on December 30, 2013. He stated that at the time 

his injury occurred he was boarding a boat. Appellant stated that he had to secure himself on the 

top rails of the other boat, with all his weight on his shoulders. He felt a weakness like a sprain 

or strain on his neck and shoulders. Appellant noted that he had a previous neck injury. He 

completed his task and shift and did not seek medical attention for at least a week following this 

incident. Appellant noted that he used sick leave immediately following the incident. He 

testified that he initially thought that his prior neck condition had resurfaced, but when he saw 

Dr. Amro in November or December she diagnosed a shoulder condition. Appellant stated that 

he had no other left shoulder incidents since July 2012. 

By decision dated March 18, 2014, OWCP’s hearing representative found that appellant 

failed to submit rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing that his left shoulder tears 

were due to his July 25, 2012 employment incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 has the burden of establishing the essential 

elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence, 

including the fact that the individual is an “employee of the United States” within the meaning of 

FECA and that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time limitation period of FECA, 

that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that any disability or 

specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment 

injury.3 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.4

 2

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

3 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383, 388 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 41 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

4 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 
4

OWCP defines a traumatic injury as, “[A] condition of the body caused by a specific 

event or incident, or series of events or incidents, within a single workday or shift. Such 

condition must be caused by external force, including stress or strain which is identifiable as to 

time and place of occurrence and member or function of the body affected.”5

 To determine 

whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, it must 

first be determined whether a “fact of injury” has been established. First 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.6

 Second, the employee must submit 

sufficient evidence, generally only in the form a medical evidence, to establish that the 

employment incident caused a personal injury.7

A medical report is of limited probative value on a given medical question if it is 

unsupported by medical rationale.8

 Medical rationale includes a physician’s detailed opinion on 

the issue of whether there is a causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition 

and the implicated employment activity. The opinion of the physician must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background of the claim, 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 specific employment activity or factors identified by the 

claimant.9

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained an employment incident on July 25, 2012 when 

boarding a ship in the performance of duty. The issue remaining on appeal is whether appellant 

has submitted sufficient medical opinion evidence to establish that this incident resulted in an 

injury. 

Appellant submitted a series of reports from Dr. Amro beginning in October 2012. 

Dr. Amro opined that in July 2012 appellant reinjured his cervical area while responding to a 

boat chase in rough waters. She diagnosed possible cervical radiculopathy and work-related 

injury. On February 13, 2013 Dr. Amro stated that appellant was having pain in the left shoulder 

that was related to his injury on July 24, 2012. She diagnosed cervicalgia, degeneration of the 

cervical intervertebral disc, pain in the joint involving the shoulder region and disorders of the 

bursa and tendons of the shoulder region. Dr. Amro stated that on May 14, 2013 appellant 

believed that his shoulder pain was due to his recent accident. In her June 26, 2013 note, she 

indicated that she first treated appellant on October 12, 2012 and that he described crossing to 

another boat and grabbing a railing on July 25, 2012 which resulted in neck and shoulder pain. 

 5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 

6 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

7 J.Z., 58 ECAB 529 (2007). 

8 T.F., 58 ECAB 128 (2006). 

9 A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006). 
5

The Board finds that Dr. Amro’s reports are not sufficiently detailed and well-reasoned to 

establish appellant’s traumatic injury claim. Although Dr. Amro noted appellant’s employment 

incident on July 25, 2012 and indicated that appellant believed that this incident resulted in his 

shoulder condition, she did not opine that she believed that this incident resulted in appellant’s 

left shoulder injury. Furthermore, she did not explain how or why the July 25, 2012 incident 

would have resulted in appellant’s diagnosed shoulder condition and surgery. 

An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture or speculation. 

Neither the fact that appellant’s claimed condition because apparent during a period of 

employment nor his belief that his condition was caused by his employment is sufficient to 

establish causal relationship.10 As appellant did not submit sufficient medical opinion evidence 

to establish a diagnosed condition as a result of his accepted medical activities, he did not meet 

his 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. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted the necessary medical opinion evidence 

to establish a causal relationship between his diagnosed left shoulder condition and his accepted 

employment incident. Appellant has not, therefore, met his burden of proof in establishing a 

traumatic injury claim. 

 10 P.R., supra note 8; Walter D. Morehead, 31 ECAB 188 (1986). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 18, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 15, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board