United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

F.J., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, OKLAHOMA CITY 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Oklahoma City, OK, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1400 

Issued: September 25, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 4, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from the December 10, 2013 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying his occupational 

disease claim. Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction to review the merits of this case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant established that injuries to both arms and elbows are 

causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The Board notes that, following the issuance of the December 10, 2013 OWCP decision and on appeal, 

appellant submitted new evidence. The Board is precluded from reviewing evidence which was not before OWCP 

at the time it issued its final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

On appeal, appellant contends that his elbow and wrist injuries are causally related to his 

federal employment duties. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 2, 2013 appellant, then a 44-year-old mail handler, filed an occupational 

disease claim alleging that on August 22, 2013 he first became aware of the sharp shooting pain 

that moved from his elbows to his wrists and then to his hands. He also first realized that his 

conditions were caused by pushing, pulling, lifting and extending his arms above his head at 

work. 

In a September 19, 2013 medical report, Dr. J. Arden Blough, an attending family 

practitioner, obtained a history that appellant’s mail handler position required repetitive pushing 

and pulling of mail weighing greater than 70 pounds. He stated that over time appellant 

experienced shooting pain in his shoulders, elbows, hands and wrists for which he sought 

medical treatment. Appellant presented with continued bilateral elbow, hand and wrist pain that 

was exacerbated by his prolonged work-related duties of lifting, pushing and pulling. 

Dr. Blough obtained a history of his medical, family, social and work background. He provided 

findings on physical and x-ray examination. Dr. Blough diagnosed cumulative trauma resulting 

in right and left arm and elbow cubital and carpal tunnel syndrome and lateral and medial 

epicondylitis. Based on his evaluation interview and examination, he opined that appellant had 

sustained an injury to his bilateral elbows, hands and wrists as the result of a disease resulting 

from his cumulative work-related activities. Dr. Blough further opined that to a reasonable 

degree of medical certainty that these injuries arose out of and were causally connected to the 

above-described occupational trauma. He addressed appellant’s treatment plan and listed his 

work restrictions which included lifting no more than 20 pounds and avoidance of temperature 

extremes, high humidity, chemicals, solvents, sands, dust and noise. In a September 25, 2013 

work limitation slip, Dr. Blough advised that appellant could not lift more than 30 pounds. 

By letter dated October 10, 2013, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence submitted 

was insufficient to establish his claim. It requested additional medical evidence. OWCP also 

requested that the employing establishment respond to appellant’s allegations and submit 

evidence regarding his work duties. 

In an October 31, 2013 letter, the employing establishment stated that it had no reason to 

disagree with appellant’s allegations. It described his repetitive work duties. 

In a December 10, 2013 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. 

It found that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish that he sustained an injury or a 

medical condition causally related to the accepted work event(s). 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3

 has the burden of establishing the essential 

elements of his or her claim, including the fact that the individual is an employee of the United 

 3

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
3

States within the meaning of FECA; that the claim was filed within the applicable time 

limitation; that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged and that any 

disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the 

employment injury.4

 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.5

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing the 

presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) a factual 

statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence 

or occurrence of the disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the 

employment factors identified by the claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for 

which compensation is claimed or, stated differently, medical evidence establishing that the 

diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant. 

The medical evidence required to establish a causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion 

evidence. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background of the employee, must be one of reasonable 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 employee.6

 Neither the fact that appellant’s 

condition became apparent during a period of employment nor, his or her belief that the 

condition was caused by his or her employment is sufficient to establish a causal relationship.7

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted appellant’s factors of federal employment as a mail handler. It denied 

his claim, however, on the grounds that the evidence failed to establish a causal relationship 

between those activities and his diagnosed conditions. The Board finds that the medical 

evidence of record is insufficient to establish that appellant developed bilateral arm, wrist and 

hand conditions causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

Dr. Blough’s September 19, 2013 report found that appellant had bilateral arm and elbow 

cubital and carpal tunnel syndrome and lateral and medial epicondylitis. While he opined that 

the diagnosed conditions were caused by appellant’s work duties, he failed to adequately explain 

how the established employment factors caused or contributed to these conditions other than 

offering a generalized opinion that such work duties caused the bilateral arm and elbow 

conditions. As Dr. Blough failed to provide a sufficient explanation as to the mechanism of 

injury, his general statement that appellant sustained a work-related injury is of limited probative 

value.8

 His September 25, 2013 work limitation slip did not provide any discussion of 

 4 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

5 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

6 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, id. at 351-52.

7 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383, 389 (1994). 

8 S.W., Docket 08-2538 (issued May 21, 2009). 
4

appellant’s work duties or provide a medical opinion on causal relationship. Medical evidence 

that does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited 

probative value.9

 The Board finds that Dr. Blough’s reports are insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim. 

The Board finds that there is insufficient rationalized medical evidence of record to 

establish that appellant sustained bilateral arm and elbow conditions causally related to the 

accepted employment factors. Appellant did not meet his burden of proof. 

On appeal, appellant contended that his elbow and wrist injuries were causally related to 

his federal employment duties. As discussed above, he did not submit sufficiently rationalized 

medical evidence to establish his claim. 

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 failed to establish that injuries to both arms and 

elbows are causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

 9 See K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004); 

Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 10, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 25, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board