United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Columbia, SC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1983 

Issued: January 14, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 15, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from March 24 and August 7, 

2014 merit decisions 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 her burden of proof to establish a left shoulder 

condition causally related to factors of her employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 31, 2014 appellant, then a 46-year-old mail carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim alleging that she developed shoulder and neck pain as a result of “grabbing mail” 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

and “lifting her left arm” to case mail. She first became aware of her condition and realized it 

resulted from her employment in December 2013. Appellant stopped work on February 3, 2014. 

By letter dated February 19, 2014, OWCP advised appellant that no evidence had been 

received in support of her claim and requested additional evidence. It requested that she respond 

to a questionnaire and describe the employment-related activities which she believed contributed 

to her condition, how often she performed such activities, and for how long they were performed. 

OWCP also requested a medical report establishing a diagnosed condition as a result of her 

alleged employment duties. 

In a decision dated March 24, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim based on her failure 

to prove fact of injury. It determined that she failed to provide sufficient factual evidence to 

establish the employment-related activities that she believed contributed to her condition and 

sufficient medical evidence to demonstrate that she sustained a diagnosed condition as a result of 

her employment. 

In an appeal request form received by OWCP on April 2, 2014, appellant requested 

reconsideration. 

Dr. Leland Stoddard, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, in a January 7, 2014 

diagnostic report, stated that an internal rotation and outlet view of the left shoulder revealed no 

specific bone, joint, or soft tissue abnormality. He also reported that lateral views of the cervical 

spine demonstrated some osteophytic diseases at C6-C7. Dr. Stoddard diagnosed degenerative 

spondylosis of the cervical spine. 

In a January 21, 2014 progress note, Dr. Stoddard examined appellant for ongoing pain in 

the left shoulder. Upon examination, he observed a fairly strong positive impingement sign in 

the shoulder. Dr. Stoddard opined that appellant had ongoing impingement pain and 

recommended a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of appellant’s left shoulder. In a work 

restriction note, he authorized appellant to return to work on January 27, 2014 with restrictions 

of no lifting greater than five pounds, no pushing, pulling, or overhead activity, and no repetitive 

use of the hand, such as grasping. 

An MRI scan report of the left shoulder dated January 27, 2014 was reviewed by 

Dr. William Conway, a Board-certified radiologist, who observed a large ganglion cyst from the 

suprascapular notch region extending between the supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles. 

Dr. Conway noted that the cyst extended both superiorly and inferiorly and did not appear to 

communicate with the joint itself. He reported that no other significant abnormality was seen. 

Dr. Stoddard observed in a January 28, 2014 report, a large ganglion cyst in the superior 

glenoid area of appellant’s left scapula. He reported no other abnormalities in the left rotator 

cuff or shoulder. Dr. Stoddard stated that the cyst was impacting the function of both the 

infraspinatus and supraspinatus musculature. He opined that this cyst was responsible for 

appellant’s pain. 

In a February 3, 2014 report, Dr. Stoddard examined appellant for ongoing pain in the left 

shoulder. He stated that appellant should have essentially no use of the left arm, including 

lifting, pushing, pulling, and repetitive activity in her work at the employing establishment. 
3

Dr. Stoddard noted that appellant was given a sling and told to wear the sling at work in order to 

prevent overuse of the left arm. 

In a February 25, 2014 report, Dr. Richard J. Friedman, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, examined appellant for complaints of approximately two months of left shoulder pain. 

He related that appellant had no prior history of left shoulder pain and noted no traumatic 

episode. Appellant stated that her pain worsened with overhead reaching progressed to where 

her daily activities were limited. Dr. Friedman noted that a January 27, 2014 MRI scan 

demonstrated a large ganglion cyst in the suprascapular notch extending between the 

supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles in the subacromial charges. Upon examination of 

appellant’s left shoulder, he observed intact contours and skin with no atrophy and asymmetry. 

Dr. Friedman also reported acromioclavicular (AC) pain to palpation on the left side and 

subacromial tenderness and positive pivot signs. Cross body abduction was positive. Speed, 

Yergason, and Jacob tests were negative. Dr. Friedman stated that x-rays taken that day were 

within normal limits. He opined that appellant had suprascapular nerve entrapment with a 

ganglion cyst of the notch, which accounted for a large part of her symptoms along with 

impingement and AC degenerative joint disease. Dr. Friedman reported that appellant’s 

condition was unlikely to resolve on its own and recommended surgery. 

Dr. Stoddard reported on March 10, 2014 that appellant was scheduled for surgery for 

arthroscopy decompression and open removal of cyst. He reported that appellant’s examination 

and complaints were unchanged. Dr. Stoddard related that appellant believed her left shoulder 

condition was an overuse type of injury at work that would account for the current findings. He 

agreed that this was a valid, overuse workers’ compensation claim. 

On April 7, 2014 appellant underwent left shoulder arthroscopy. She submitted the 

hospital operative report and discharge instructions. 

In a May 15, 2014 statement, the employing establishment controverted the claim. 

By decision dated August 7, 2014, OWCP denied modification of the March 24, 2014 

denial decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence2

including that she sustained an injury in the performance of duty and that any specific condition 

or disability for work for which she claims compensation is causally related to that employment 

injury.3 In an occupational disease claim, appellant’s burden requires submission of the 

following: (1) a factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or 

contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or condition; (2) medical evidence 

 2 J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 58 (1968). 

3 M.M., Docket No. 08-1510 (issued November 25, 2010); G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 
4

establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is 

claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to 

the employment factors identified by the employee.4 It is the employee’s burden to establish that 

his or her injury occurred at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.5

 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleges that she developed left shoulder and neck pain as a result of her 

employment. In a February 19, 2014 letter, OWCP advised her to submit additional factual and 

medical evidence to establish her claim. A questionnaire was provided where appellant was 

requested to describe the employment-related activities which she believed contributed to her 

condition, how often she performed such activities, and for how long they were performed. 

OWCP also requested a physician’s opinion based on examination and medical rationale 

regarding how appellant’s work activities caused or contributed to her alleged medical condition. 

Appellant provided various medical and hospital reports regarding her treatment for left 

shoulder and neck conditions but failed to respond to OWCP’s questionnaire and failed to 

provide any additional factual evidence describing in detail the work activities which she 

believed caused or contributed to her left shoulder condition. To establish a claim for 

compensation, the Board has held that an employee must submit a statement which identifies the 

factors of employment believed to have caused his or her condition and submit medical evidence 

to establish causal relation.6

 Appellant claimed that she developed left shoulder pain as a result 

of “grabbing mail” and “lifting her left arm.” She did not provide any further evidence 

describing her work activities, how often she performed these activities, or for how long she 

performed them. The employing establishment disputed appellant’s claim, noting that appellant 

had reported that her neck pain began on the way to work, not while at work. The only other 

evidence addressing appellant’s work factors is found in Dr. Stoddard’s March 10, 2014 report 

where he agreed that her left shoulder condition was a valid overuse workers’ compensation 

claim. The Board finds that this evidence is insufficient to establish a claim as appellant failed to 

describe the specific employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the overuse 

injury to her left shoulder and neck.7

As appellant has not established the employment factors alleged to have caused her 

claimed condition, it is not necessary to consider the medical evidence with respect to causal 

relationship.8

 4 R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008); Ernest St. Pierre, 51 ECAB 623 (2000). 

5 Delphyne L. Glover, 51 ECAB 146 (1999). 

6 Donald W. Wenzel, 56 ECAB 390 (2005); Richard H. Weiss, 47 ECAB 182 (1995). 

7 See B.H., Docket No. 13-1034 (issued September 13, 2013). 

8 See S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007). 
5

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 her burden of proof to establish that she 

sustained a left shoulder condition causally related to factors of her employment. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 7 and March 24, 2014 merit decisions 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: January 14, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board