United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

K.G., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bellmawr, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1258 

Issued: October 9, 2014 

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 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 7, 2014 appellant, through her attorney, filed a timely appeal from a January 29, 

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 established that she sustained plantar fasciitis causally 

related to her accepted November 28, 2011 right heel injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On November 28, 2011 appellant, a 36-year-old letter carrier, filed a claim for benefits, 

alleging that she injured her right heel when she stepped into a hole. Hospital records dated 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

November 28, 2011 reflect that she was evaluated for a right foot injury and was released with a 

diagnosis of heel spur. 

Appellant was seen by Dr. Joseph Daniel, an osteopathic physician Board-certified in 

foot and ankle surgery, on December 2, 2011. Dr. Daniel noted that on physical examination she 

was tender along the plantar aspect of the right heel and that x-ray of the right foot showed 

evidence of an enthesophyte at the origin of the plantar fasciitis. He diagnosed contusion of the 

right heel. 

In a report dated December 14, 2011, Dr. James Cancilleri, a specialist in podiatry, stated 

that x-rays of appellant’s right foot showed no evidence of fracture or dislocation and were 

otherwise unremarkable. He diagnosed a stress fracture with contusion of the right foot and 

scheduled appellant for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. 

In a February 24, 2012 report, Dr. Cancilleri reviewed the results of several diagnostic 

tests. He stated that radiographs taken on December 2, 2011 showed no fractures, normal 

alignment of the foot anatomy, with evidence of an enthesophyte at the origin of plantar fasciitis. 

Dr. Cancilleri advised that December 14, 2011 x-rays of the lateral and axial view of the right 

heel demonstrated unremarkable bone stock for appellant’s age and sex, with no evidence of 

fracture or dislocation. A December 30, 2011 MRI scan showed a heel spur with minimal 

change plantar fasciitis; there was no evidence of a stress fracture or post-traumatic change. 

Dr. Cancilleri stated that appellant not only sustained a work-related injury to the affected heel 

but also sustained an acute incident to the plantar fasciitis in the right leg, despite negative 

osseous findings. He noted that, while the plantar fasciitis can be injured acutely or chronically, 

she had sustained an acute event with triggering of an acute plantar fasciitis event. Dr. Cancilleri 

opined that there was a contusion and that appellant would benefit from the use of appropriate 

shoes, rest and functional foot orthosis. 

By decision dated March 16, 2012, OWCP denied the claim, finding that appellant failed 

to establish fact of injury. 

By letter dated April 3, 2012, appellant’s attorney requested an oral hearing, which was 

held on July 12, 2012. At the hearing, appellant testified that, when she tripped and fell in the 

hole, her foot became stuck. She tried to catch her balance came down hard on her right foot. 

By decision dated September 24, 2012, an OWCP hearing representative set aside the 

March 16, 2012 decision. He found that appellant sustained the November 28, 2011 incident in 

the time, place and manner alleged and had provided sufficiently rationalized medical evidence 

to establishing that the incident caused a right heel contusion. The hearing representative found 

that the medical evidence of record was not sufficient to accept plantar fasciitis, as an accepted 

condition. He found that Dr. Cancilleri did not provide a reasoned medical explanation of how 

the plantar fasciitis condition was causally related to her November 28, 2011 employment injury. 

The hearing representative directed that appellant be referred to a second opinion examiner to 
3

determine whether her plantar fasciitis condition was causally related to her November 28, 2011 

work injury.2 

In a progress report dated October 22, 2012, Dr. Cancilleri diagnosed a plantar fasciitis. 

He explained that physical examination of appellant revealed mild tenderness on palpation at the 

plantar medial aspect of the right heel at the area of the insertion of the plantar fasciitis. 

Dr. Cancilleri advised that she should continue with use of a stable running shoe and orthotics, 

but no follow up was necessary as she had reached maximum medical improvement. 

Appellant submitted a December 4, 2012 Form CA-7 requesting compensation for wage 

loss for January 13 to March 12, 2012. 

By decision dated December 13, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage loss for 

January 13 to March 12, 2012. 

By letter dated December 18, 2012, appellant’s attorney requested an oral hearing, which 

was held on March 26, 2013. 

In a report dated March 29, 2013, Dr. Cancilleri stated that appellant sustained traumatic 

plantar fasciitis with contusion of her right heel area. He asserted that the plantar fasciitis tore 

and the heel was bruised as she twisted her foot. Dr. Cancilleri opined that as a direct result of 

the November 28, 2011 injury appellant was totally disabled from her job from November 28, 

2011 to October 22, 2012. 

By decision dated June 12, 2013, the hearing representative vacated the December 13, 

2012 decision, finding that the case should be referred to a second opinion physician. 

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Zohar Stark, Board-certified in orthopedic surgeon. In a 

report dated July 11, 2013, Dr. Stark set forth findings on examination and reviewed the medical 

history and statement of accepted facts. He concluded that appellant did not sustain a right 

plantar fasciitis condition as a consequence of the November 28, 2011 work injury. On 

examination, appellant was able to walk with a normal reciprocating heel/toe gait. Dr. Stark 

advised that she was able to walk in calcaneus and equinus gaits but complained of pain in her 

right heel. His examination of appellant’s right ankle and right hind foot revealed no swelling or 

local tenderness on palpation over the ankle or foot. Based on Dr. Stark’s examination, she had 

not developed plantar fasciitis in her right foot as a result of the accepted November 28, 2011 

employment trauma. He advised that there were no objective findings to substantiate the 

diagnosis and he determined that appellant had recovered from the November 28, 2011 work 

injury. Dr. Stark concluded that she could perform her regular, preinjury work as a postal 

worker. 

By decision dated July 24, 2013, OWCP denied claim for benefits, finding that appellant 

did not sustain right plantar fasciitis causally related to her accepted November 28, 2011 

 2

 The hearing representative further found that the record was devoid of rationalized medical opinion evidence 

explaining how and why appellant was ever temporarily and totally disabled as a result of her November 28, 2011 

workplace injury. 
4

employment injury. It found that Dr. Stark’s referral opinion represented the weight of the 

medical evidence. 

By letter dated July 29, 2013, appellant’s attorney requested an oral hearing, which was 

held on November 15, 2013. 

By decision dated January 29, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

July 24, 2013 decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3

 has the burden of establishing that the 

essential elements of his or her claim including the fact 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 period of FECA, that an injury was sustained 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 upon a traumatic injury or an 

occupational disease.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 of medical evidence, to establish that the 

employment incident caused a personal injury.7

The Board has held that the mere fact that a condition manifests itself during a period of 

employment does not raise an inference that there is a causal relationship between the two.8

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

Neither, the fact that appellant’s condition became apparent during a period of employment nor 

the belief that his or her condition was caused, precipitated or aggravated by his or her 

employment is sufficient to establish causal relationship.9

 Causal relationship must be 

established by rationalized medical opinion evidence and appellant failed to submit such 

evidence. 

 3 Supra note 1. 

4 Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

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

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

7 Id. For a definition of the term “injury” see 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(e). 

8 See Joe T. Williams, 44 ECAB 518, 521 (1993). 

9 Id.
5

Section 8123(a) provides that if there is a disagreement between the physician making the 

examination for the United States and the physician of the employee the Secretary shall appoint a 

third physician who shall make an examination.10 It is well established that, when a case is 

referred to an impartial medical specialist for the purpose of resolving a conflict, the opinion of 

such specialist, if sufficiently well rationalized and based on a proper factual and medical 

background, must be given special weight.11

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that there is a conflict in medical opinion between Dr. Cancilleri and 

Dr. Stark concerning whether appellant sustained a plantar fasciitis condition causally related to 

her accepted November 28, 2011 right heel injury. In his October 22, 2012 report, Dr. Cancilleri 

explained that he diagnosed her plantar fasciitis based upon physical examination as she had 

tenderness on palpation at the plantar medial aspect of the right heel at the area of the insertion of 

the plantar fasciitis. He submitted a March 29, 2013 report, in which he stated that appellant 

suffered from traumatic plantar fasciitis with contusion of her right heel area. Dr. Cancilleri 

explained that the plantar fasciitis tore and the heel were bruised as she twisted her foot during the 

November 28, 2011 work incident. OWCP subsequently referred appellant for a second opinion 

examination with Dr. Stark. In his July 11, 2013 report, Dr. Stark opined that he had reviewed 

the prior medical reports and record and examined her and determined that she did not sustain a 

right plantar fasciitis condition causally related to the November 28, 2011 work injury. He 

opined that there were no objective findings to support diagnosis of plantar fasciitis in 

appellant’s right foot, causally related to the November 28, 2011 work injury, from which she 

had recovered. This created a conflict in the medical evidence. 

The Board therefore finds that, in its July 24, 2013 decision, OWCP erred in failing to 

find that a conflict existed in the medical evidence. Accordingly, the Board will set aside the 

January 29, 2013 decision of the hearing representative and remands for referral of appellant, the 

case record and a statement of accepted facts12 to an impartial medical specialist to resolve the 

conflict in medical evidence regarding whether she sustained a plantar fasciitis condition 

causally related to her accepted November 28, 2011 right heel injury. 

After such further development of the record as it deems necessary, OWCP shall issue a 

de novo decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision. The case is remanded for 

further development of the medical evidence. 

 10 Regina T. Pellecchia, 53 ECAB 155 (2001). 

11 Jacqueline Brasch (Ronald Brasch), 52 ECAB 252 (2001). 

12 Appellant’s attorney contends that the statement of accepted facts is inadequate because appellant testified at 

the hearing that, when she tripped and fell in a hole, her foot got stuck; when she tried to catch her balance, her foot 

came out and she came down hard on her right foot. He argues that the mechanism of injury should be described 

accurately so that any physician who evaluates the matter should have a full understanding of the work injury. 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 29, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded to OWCP for further 

action consistent with this decision of the Board.13

Issued: October 9, 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 

 13 See G.B., Docket No. 13-1260 (issued December 2, 2013); J.V., Docket No. 12-90 (issued July 2, 2012).