United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

H.G., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST 

SERVICE, Albuquerque, NM, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-2033 

Issued: February 27, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 22, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 21, 2014 merit 

decision and an August 6, 2014 nonmerit 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. 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty on June 5, 2013; and (2) whether OWCP properly denied her 

request for further merit review of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 18, 2013 appellant, then a 34-year-old administrative and office support 

worker, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed a right foot 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

injury causally related to foot patrolling the employing establishment for an entire shift due to an 

incident at Thompson Ridge. She first became aware of her condition and of its relationship to 

her employment on June 5, 2013. 

By letter dated October 29, 2013, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies in her 

claim. It stated that it had not received any documentation other than her claim form and asked 

that she submit a response to its questionnaire in order to substantiate the factual elements of her 

claim, including a clarification as to whether she was claiming an occupational disease or a 

traumatic injury. OWCP also asked appellant to submit medical evidence in support of her 

claim. In a letter of the same date, it asked the employing establishment to respond to its 

inquiries as to her duties. 

In a report dated August 29, 2013, Dr. Daniel A. Romanelli, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, stated that appellant had “foot pain mostly over the navicular.” On examination, he 

noted a flat feet deformity, tenderness over the inside portion of her right foot over the navicular, 

and tenderness over the lateral proximal fifth metatarsal. An x-ray revealed mild degenerative 

arthrosis and mild patellar tilt, with no obvious fractures. 

On September 5, 2013 Dr. Romanelli stated that appellant presented to him with a 

possible navicular injury. He noted that he had ordered a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 

scan of her right foot, but it had not included the calcaneus and that as such he was going to 

order another MRI scan . 

In a report dated September 10, 2013, Dr. Romanelli noted that an MRI scan revealed 

that appellant had an osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) lesion of her talus, medial talar dome, and 

an effusion of the right ankle. 

In a radiological report dated October 3, 2013, Dr. Romanelli noted a normal x-ray of 

appellant’s right ankle. 

On November 21, 2013 Dr. Romanelli stated that appellant felt better in her own boot, 

with pain continuing in the plantar arch right over the insertion into the heal with point 

tenderness. 

Appellant also submitted records from physical therapists dated between September 10 

and December 4, 2013. 

By decision dated December 16, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for 

compensation. It noted that she had not submitted any explanation as to how the performance of 

any work activities caused or aggravated her claimed condition, and that as such, she had not met 

her burden of proof to establish that any employment factors had actually occurred. 

In a report dated December 17, 2013, Dr. Romanelli noted that appellant complained of 

mediolateral ankle pain and knee pain with popping. He stated that she developed plantar 

fasciitis, which improved over time. Dr. Romanelli ordered an MRI scan of appellant’s ankle. 

On January 13, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s December 16, 2013 

decision. 
3

In a record of a telephone conversation dated January 16, 2014, a claims examiner spoke 

to appellant regarding her case and informed her that her claim was for a traumatic injury, rather 

than an occupational disease, based on her description that her injury was caused by a specific 

incident. 

On September 23, 2013 appellant filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging 

that on June 5, 2013, she was on her feet for her entire shift in mountainous terrain, felt a pop, 

and continued to “walk it off.” She stated that, as a result of this incident, she developed right 

ankle pain and swelling. 

On March 21, 2014 OWCP reviewed the merits of appellant’s claim and denied her claim 

based upon insufficient medical evidence. It noted that she had provided sufficient factual 

information to establish that the traumatic incident of June 5, 2013 occurred as described. 

However, OWCP further noted that appellant had not submitted evidence from a physician 

containing a description of the mechanism of her injury and an opinion on the causal relationship 

between the traumatic incident and her diagnosed condition. 

By letter dated April 3, 2014, Dr. Romanelli stated that, sometime before August 29, 

2013, appellant was working as a forestry employee in mountainous terrain, got out of her truck, 

stepped backward, and rolled her ankle and foot. He noted that she initially presented to him 

with foot pain, which he thought might be a stress navicular fracture. On examination of an MRI 

scan, Dr. Romanelli discovered that appellant had an OCD lesion of the medial talus, which 

“goes along with an inversion type injury,” as well as a syndesmosis injury. He stated, “So her 

mechanism of injury was stepping backward out of a truck, twisted her ankle and foot. 

[Appellant] walks quite a bit on the job on various mountainous terrain, and I believe that the 

twisting injury caused the medial talar dome injury that has gone on to heal and also the 

syndesmosis injury which has apparently gone on to heal and is asymptomatic, so there is a 

causal relationship.” 

On April 8, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s March 21, 2014 

decision. 

By decision dated May 21, 2014, OWCP reviewed the merits of appellant’s claim and 

affirmed its prior decision of March 21, 2014. It noted that Dr. Romanelli’s letter of April 3, 

2014 described a mechanism of injury that had not been alleged by appellant to have caused her 

condition, and that as such, Dr. Romanelli’s opinion on causal relationship was not based on 

identified factors of her federal employment. 

In an e-mail dated June 3, 2014, appellant stated, “I accepted a fire assignment in June, 

2013. While on a fire assignment working in mountainous terrain, was working, basically got 

off the truck, stepped backward, and rolled my right ankle and foot. The pain showed up in my 

foot and ankle.” Appellant also described how she found the workers’ compensation process 

difficult. 

On June 24, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s May 21, 2014 

decision. 
4

By decision dated August 6, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

without reviewing the merits of her claim. It stated that her letter neither raised substantive legal 

questions nor included new and relevant evidence. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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 and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are 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 on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4

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.5

 

First, the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that 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 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.8 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.9

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.10 Rationalized medical 

 2 Id. 

3 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364, 366 (2006). 

4 S.P., 59 ECAB 184, 188 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153, 157 (1989). 

5 B.F., Docket No. 09-60 (issued March 17, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, supra note 3. 

6 D.B., 58 ECAB 464, 466 (2007); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137, 140 (2005). 

7 C.B., Docket No. 08-1583 (issued December 9, 2008); D.G., 59 ECAB 734, 737 (2008); Bonnie A. Contreras, 

supra note 3. 

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

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

10 Y.J., Docket No. 08-1167 (issued October 7, 2008); A.D., 58 ECAB 149, 155-56 (2006); D’Wayne Avila, 57 

ECAB 642, 649 (2006). 
5

opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on 

whether there is a causal relationship between the employee’s diagnosed condition and 

compensable employment factors.11 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete 

factual and medical background of the employee, 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 employee.12

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

OWCP accepted that appellant was a federal civilian employee who filed a timely claim 

and that she had established that the traumatic event of June 5, 2013 occurred as alleged. 

Appellant stated that on June 5, 2013 she was on her feet for her entire shift in mountainous 

terrain, felt a pop, and continued to “walk it off.” The Board finds that she has been diagnosed 

with a medical condition in connection with this incident, as she alleged a right foot condition 

and Dr. Romanelli diagnosed her with an OCD lesion of her talus, medial talar dome, and an 

effusion of the right ankle. However, the question of whether an employment incident caused a 

personal injury can only be established by probative medical evidence.13 Appellant has not 

submitted rationalized, probative medical evidence to establish that the June 5, 2013 employment 

incident caused or aggravated her claimed conditions. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted reports from Dr. Romanelli. In reports dated 

from August 29 and December 17, 2013, Dr. Romanelli provided diagnoses for her right foot 

condition and charted her progress. However, he did not provide an opinion as to the cause of 

appellant’s condition in these reports. Medical evidence which does not offer any opinion 

regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of 

causal relationship.14 As such, they do not suffice to establish appellant’s claim for 

compensation. 

In a letter dated April 3, 2014, Dr. Romanelli stated that sometime before August 29, 

2013 appellant was working as a forestry employee in mountainous terrain, got out of her truck, 

stepped backward, and rolled her ankle and foot. On examination of an MRI scan, he discovered 

that she had an OCD lesion of the medial talus, which “goes along with an inversion type 

injury,” as well as a syndesmosis injury. Dr. Romanelli stated, “So [appellant’s] mechanism of 

injury was stepping backward out of a truck, twisted her ankle and foot. [Appellant] walks quite 

a bit on the job on various mountainous terrain, and I believe that the twisting injury caused the 

medial talar dome injury that has gone on to heal and also the syndesmosis injury which has 

apparently gone on to heal and is asymptomatic, so there is a causal relationship.” He offered an 

opinion as to the causal relationship between her conditions and a work-related event; however, 

the history of injury given by him does not match the history of injury as reported by her. The 

mechanism of injury is not described as appellant walking all day in mountainous terrain, but 

 11 J.J., Docket No. 09-27 (issued February 10, 2009); Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379, 384 (2006). 

12 I.J., 59 ECAB 408, 415 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989). 

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

14 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313, 316 n.8 (1999). 
6

instead as stepping backward out of a truck. Dr. Romanelli does not offer the particular date of 

June 5, 2013 as the date of injury, but instead merely notes that it occurred before 

August 29, 2013. Medical conclusions based on inaccurate or incomplete histories are of little 

probative value.15 While the event described by Dr. Romanelli may be the basis for filing of a 

separate traumatic injury claim, it does not suffice to establish this claim, which is for a traumatic 

injury that occurred on June 5, 2013 as a result of appellant being on her feet for her entire shift 

in mountainous terrain, feeling a pop, and continuing to “walk it off.” Without an accurate 

history corresponding to the traumatic event on which this claim is based, Dr. Romanelli’s report 

of April 3, 2013 is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

As such, there is insufficient rationalized evidence of record supporting that appellant’s 

right foot condition was related to a traumatic injury at work on June 5, 2013. Appellant failed 

to provide a medical report from a physician containing an opinion on causal relationship, an 

accurate history of injury, and rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the 

diagnosed condition and the traumatic event of June 5, 2013. Accordingly, she did not establish 

that she sustained a right foot injury in the performance of duty on June 5, 2013, and OWCP 

properly denied her claim for compensation. 

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. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128(a), OWCP’s 

regulations provide that the evidence or argument submitted by a claimant must: (1) show that 

OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advance a relevant legal 

argument not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitute relevant and pertinent new 

evidence not previously considered by OWCP.16 Section 10.608(b) of OWCP’s regulations 

provide that, when an application for reconsideration does not meet at least one of the three 

requirements enumerated under section 10.606(b)(2), OWCP will deny the application for 

reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on the merits.17

The Board has found that evidence that repeats or duplicates evidence already in the case 

record has no evidentiary value.18 The Board also has held that the submission of evidence 

which does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a 

 15 James A. Wyrick, 31 ECAB 1805, 1807 (1980) (finding that a physician’s report was entitled to little probative 

value because the history was both inaccurate and incomplete). See generally Melvina Jackson, 38 ECAB 443, 450 

(1987) (addressing factors that bear on the probative value of medical opinions). 

16 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2); D.K., 59 ECAB 141, 146 (2007). 

17 Id. at § 10.608(b); see K.H., 59 ECAB 495, 499 (2008). 

18 See Daniel Deparini, 44 ECAB 657, 659 (1993). 
7

case.19 While the reopening of a case may be predicated solely on a legal premise not previously 

considered, such reopening is not required where the legal contention does not have a reasonable 

color of validity.20

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

OWCP issued a May 21, 2014 merit decision denying appellant’s claim for compensation 

because she did not submit sufficient medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between 

the traumatic incident of June 5, 2013 and her diagnosed conditions. On June 24, 2014 appellant 

requested reconsideration of this decision. 

The issue presented on appeal of OWCP’s August 6, 2014 decision is whether appellant 

met any of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3), requiring OWCP to reopen the case for 

review of the merits of her claim. In her June 24, 2014 request for reconsideration, appellant did 

not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law, or advance a new 

and relevant legal argument not previously considered. Thus, she is not entitled to a review of 

the merits of her claim based on the first and second above-noted requirements under section 

10.606(b)(2). 

The relevant issue in this case is whether appellant has submitted sufficient medical 

evidence establishing that a traumatic injury on June 5, 2013 caused or aggravated her diagnosed 

right foot conditions. A claimant may be entitled to a merit review by submitting new and 

relevant evidence, but appellant did not submit any new and relevant evidence in this case. In a 

statement dated June 3, 2014, appellant noted, “I accepted a fire assignment in June, 2013. 

While on a fire assignment working in mountainous terrain, was working, basically got off the 

truck, stepped backward and rolled my right ankle and foot. The pain showed up in my foot and 

ankle.” While this statement was not previously of record, it is irrelevant to the grounds upon 

which OWCP denied her claim. Appellant’s claim under file number xxxxxx459 deals with a 

traumatic incident on June 5, 2013 in which the described mechanism of injury was being on her 

feet for her entire shift in mountainous terrain, feeling a pop, and continuing to “walk it off.” 

Her statement, submitted upon reconsideration, describes a separate traumatic event. While this 

event may be the basis for a separate traumatic injury claim, it is not relevant to the current 

claim. As such, appellant’s June 3, 2014 statement was insufficient to require a merit review of 

her claim. 

The Board accordingly finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2). Appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a 

specific point of law, advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP, or 

submit relevant and pertinent evidence not previously considered. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review. 

 19 P.C., 58 ECAB 405, 412 (2007); Ronald A. Eldridge, 53 ECAB 218, 222 (2001); Alan G. Williams, 52 ECAB 

180, 187 (2000). 

20 Vincent Holmes, 53 ECAB 468, 472 (2002); Robert P. Mitchell, 52 ECAB 116, 119 (2000). 
8

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty on June 5, 2013. The Board further finds that OWCP properly 

denied her request for review of the merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated August 6 and May 21, 2014 are affirmed. 

Issued: February 27, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board