United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Tulsa, OK, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1010 

Issued: July 21, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 30, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely application for review from 

a January 27, 2015 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 met his burden of proof to establish an injury to the left 

shoulder causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board. In a November 12, 2013 decision, the 

Board affirmed an OWCP decision dated April 8, 2013 which found that appellant had not met 

his burden of proof to establish a left shoulder injury causally related to factors of his federal 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

employment.2 The law and facts of the case as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are 

incorporated by reference. The Board’s review of the previous medical evidence of record is 

res judicata.3

On October 27, 2014 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted 

additional medical evidence. In a letter dated July 1, 2013, Dr. Michael Gebetsberger, a Boardcertified internist, stated: 

“[Appellant] is a patient under my care at Utica Park Clinic. He has experienced 

left rotator cuff pathology requiring surgery earlier this year. [Appellant] has on 

multiple occasions demonstrated to me the movement required to obtain parcels 

of mail from the back seat of his delivery vehicle, which would over time directly 

affect the left shoulder. It is, therefore, my opinion that this injury is work 

related.” 

By decision dated January 27, 2015, OWCP reviewed the merits of appellant’s claim and 

denied his claim as the medical evidence was insufficient to establish a causal relationship 

between his diagnosed condition and factors of his federal employment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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 

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

employment injury.4 These are the essential elements of 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. 

 2

 Docket No. 13-1410 (issued November 12, 2013). Appellant, a rural mail carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim on May 20, 2012 alleging that he sustained a left shoulder injury due to reaching to obtain mail from the back 

of his mail truck. 

3 See A.P., Docket No. 14-1228 (issued October 15, 2014). As the Board has previously reviewed the evidence of 

record submitted prior OWCP’s April 8, 2013 decision, the issue of its weight is res judicata and not subject to 

further consideration by the Board. 

4 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278, 279 (2001); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

5 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313, 315 (1999). 
3

The claimant has the burden of establishing by the weight of reliable, probative and 

substantial evidence that the condition for which compensation is sought is causally related to a 

specific employment incident or to specific conditions of employment.6

 An award of 

compensation may not be based on appellant’s belief of causal relationship. Neither the mere 

fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment nor the belief that 

the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or incidents is 

sufficient to establish a causal relationship.7

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence required to establish 

causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.8

 Rationalized medical opinion 

evidence is medical evidence which includes a physician’s reasoned opinion on whether there is 

a causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the compensable 

employment factors. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and 

medical background of the claimant, 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 the specific employment factors identified by the claimant.9

 The weight of 

medical evidence is determined by its reliability, its probative value, its convincing quality, the 

care of analysis manifested and the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s 

opinion.10

ANALYSIS 

The Board issued a November 12, 2013 decision, finding that appellant had not met his 

burden of proof to establish that he developed an occupational disease in the course of his 

employment. Appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration, and on January 27, 2015 

OWCP reviewed the merits of his case, but denied his claim as he had not submitted sufficient 

medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between factors of his federal employment 

and his diagnosed left shoulder condition. 

On reconsideration, appellant submitted a new medical report dated July 1, 2013 from 

Dr. Gebetsberger. 

While Dr. Gebetsberger’s letter contains an opinion on causal relationship, it is not 

rationalized on the matter. The opinion must rest on a complete factual and medical background, 

be expressed in terms of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical 

rationale to explain the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific 

employment factors identified by the claimant. He does not provide complete history or a 

detailed discussion of the factors alleged to have caused appellant’s injury and does not specify a 

 6 Roma A. Mortenson-Kindschi, 57 ECAB 418, 428 n.37 (2006); Katherine J. Friday, 47 ECAB 591, 594 (1996). 

7 P.K., Docket No. 08-2551 (issued June 2, 2009); Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215, 218 (1997). 

8 Elizabeth H. Kramm (Leonard O. Kramm), 57 ECAB 117, 123 (2005). 

9 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132, 134 (2000). 

10 Jennifer Atkerson, 55 ECAB 317, 319 (2004); Naomi A. Lilly, 10 ECAB 560, 573 (1959). 
4

time frame in which the alleged work factors were active in causing or aggravating his condition. 

As such, Dr. Gebetsberger’s letter of July 1, 2013 did not meet the requirements to establish a 

causal relationship between specific factors of appellant’s federal employment and his left 

shoulder condition. 

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 did not meet his burden of proof to establish a shoulder 

injury causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 27, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 21, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board