United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

W.G., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BULK MAIL 

CENTER, Jersey City, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-302 

Issued: March 25, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 21, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an 

August 26, 2014 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has established an injury in the performance of duty on 

July 3, 2007. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

The case was before the Board on a prior appeal.2

 As the Board noted appellant, a 55-

year-old mail handler, had filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he sustained 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 Docket No. 13-2084 (issued April 25, 2014). 
2

an injury while lifting and pulling letter trays on July 3, 2007. OWCP initially denied the claim 

by decision dated September 7, 2007, finding that the factual and medical evidence was 

insufficient to establish the claim. 

On September 17, 2007 appellant submitted a September 4, 2007 report from Dr. Marc 

Fillipone, a Board-certified physiatrist, who provided a history and results on examination. 

Dr. Fillipone diagnosed lumbosacral radiculitis, cervical radiculitis and internal derangement of 

the right shoulder. He opined that appellant’s conditions were the result of “repetitive stress 

while working for the [employing establishment].” 

On December 3, 2007 appellant submitted an October 26, 2007 report from Dr. Fillipone, 

who again provided a history of July 3, 2007 incident and reviewed the medical history. 

Dr. Fillipone stated that appellant continued to have complaints of low back pain and provided 

results on examination. He diagnosed cervical radiculopathy and lumbar radiculitis. 

Dr. Fillipone opined that the above conditions were “directly and solely the result of the injuries 

sustained by the patient on [July 3, 2007] while working for the [employing establishment].” 

In a decision dated June 17, 2013, OWCP denied the claim for compensation. It found 

the medical evidence was insufficient to establish the claim. 

By decision dated April 25, 2014, the Board remanded the case to OWCP. The Board 

noted that OWCP had not reviewed the October 26, 2007 report from Dr. Fillipone. The case 

was remanded to OWCP for proper review of the evidence of record and an appropriate decision. 

In a decision dated August 26, 2014, OWCP denied the claim for compensation. It found 

that the medical evidence, including the October 26, 2007 report from Dr. Fillipone, was not 

sufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

FECA provides for the payment of compensation for “the disability or death of an 

employee resulting from personal injury sustained while in the performance of duty.”3

 The 

phrase “sustained while in the performance of duty” in FECA is regarded as the equivalent of the 

commonly found requisite in workers’ compensation law of “arising out of an in the course of 

employment.”4

 An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing that 

he or she sustained an injury while in the performance of duty.5 In order to determine whether 

an employee actually sustained an injury in the performance of duty, OWCP begins with an 

analysis of whether “fact of injury” has been established. Generally “fact of injury” consists of 

two components which must be considered in conjunction with one another. The first 

component to be established is that the employee actually experienced the employment incident 

which is alleged to have occurred. The second component is whether the employment incident 

 

 3 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

 4 Valerie C. Boward, 50 ECAB 126 (1998). 

5 Melinda C. Epperly, 45 ECAB 196, 198 (1993); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.115. 
3

caused a personal injury, and generally this can be established only by rationalized medical 

evidence.6

 

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence that is based on a complete 

factual and medical background, of reasonable medical certainty, and supported by medical 

rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the 

specific employment factors identified by the claimant. The weight of medical evidence is 

determined by its reliability, its probative value, its convincing quality, the care of the analysis 

manifested, and the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.7

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, OWCP accepted that appellant was lifting and pulling letter trays on 

July 3, 2007. The issue was whether the medical evidence was sufficient to establish causal 

relationship between a diagnosed condition and the employment factors. In the prior decision, 

the Board noted that in the September 4, 2007 report, Dr. Fillipone referred generally to 

repetitive stress activities and did not explain how the particular activities appellant stated that he 

performed on July 3, 2007 would have caused the diagnosed conditions. 

In the October 26, 2007 report, Dr. Fillipone diagnosed cervical radiculopathy and 

lumbar radiculitis. He opined that the diagnoses were “directly and solely the result of injuries 

sustained” by appellant on July 3, 2007 while working at the employing establishment. 

However, Dr. Fillipone provides no medical rationale to support the opinion. A rationalized 

medical opinion, as noted above, provides a clear explanation as to how the employment factors 

caused the specific diagnosed conditions. Dr. Fillipone provides a medical history, but does not 

provide sound medical reasoning to explain why he believes the diagnosed conditions were 

directly and solely caused by the employment factors on July 3, 2007. The reports from 

Dr. Fillipone do not provide a rationalized medical opinion, based on a complete background, 

establishing causal relationship between a diagnosed condition and the July 3, 2007 employment 

activity. 

The Board accordingly finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof in this case. 

On appeal, appellant’s representative argues that the medical evidence from Dr. Fillipone is 

sufficient to establish the claim. For the reasons noted, the Board finds the medical evidence is 

of diminished probative value on the issue presented. 

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. 

 6 See John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354, 357 (1989). 

 7 Jennifer Atkerson, 55 ECAB 317, 319 (2004). 
4

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established an injury in the performance of duty on 

July 3, 2007. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated August 26, 2014 is affirmed. 

Issued: March 25, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board