United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

W.A., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Palm Desert, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1192 

Issued: October 17, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Jeffrey P. Zeelander, 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 April 28, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a December 19, 

2013 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 has established a right shoulder injury causally related to 

factors of her federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 19, 2012 appellant, then a 56-year-old mail carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim and claim for compensation (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained a right shoulder 

injury causally related to repetitive right arm movements in her job duties. In a letter dated 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

July 9, 2012, she stated that she had been a city carrier until October 23, 2010, when she stopped 

working due to an employment injury to her back.2

 Appellant stated that in 2010 she 

experienced shoulder pain and she discussed her job duties. In a letter dated September 23, 

2012, she stated that a second opinion report had stated that she had a work-related shoulder 

injury. 

The record contains a May 26, 2011 report from Dr. Aubrey Swartz, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, who noted that appellant reported pain in her right shoulder and appellant 

stated that it was a repetitive strain injury. 

On October 2, 2012 appellant submitted a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report 

dated October 3, 2011 from Dr. Christian Neumann, a radiologist, which reflected an extensive 

partial thickness tear of the right rotator cuff. In a report dated July 18, 2012, Dr. Mark 

Barnhard, an osteopath, provided a history of an August 23, 2010 employment incident involving 

an onset of low back pain after pulling a lever. As to the right shoulder, he reported that 

appellant developed a gradual onset of pain in July 2010, but did not see a physician until 

September 2011. Dr. Barnhard indicated that appellant was given an injection in her shoulder by 

a physicians’ assistant in October 2011. He provided results on examination and diagnosed 

lumbar facet arthropathy and right shoulder rotator cuff tendinopathy, stable. 

By decision dated October 16, 2012, OWCP denied the claim for compensation. It 

indicated that appellant had referred to a second opinion report from Dr. Swartz, but this was a 

referral from the back injury claim and Dr. Swartz did not state that appellant had a work-related 

shoulder injury. OWCP found the evidence did not establish an employment-related injury. 

Appellant requested reconsideration and submitted a September 27, 2013 report from 

Dr. Jacob Tauber, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who provided a history and noted 

appellant’s job duties. Dr. Tauber provided results on examination and diagnosed right rotator 

cuff tear. He stated that appellant carried out extensive strenuous and repetitive motion duties in 

the course of her employment, noting appellant’s job duties of retrieving and casing mail. 

Dr. Tauber stated that appellant had a rotator cuff tear and the mechanism of injury was a 

“classic repetitive motion due to her impingement.” He concluded that appellant’s injury should 

be considered work related. 

By decision dated December 19, 2013, OWCP reviewed the case on its merits and denied 

modification. It found the medical evidence was insufficient to establish the claim. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

A claimant seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing the essential 

elements of his claim by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence, including 

that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that any specific condition 

or disability claimed is causally related to the employment injury.3 

 2

 The record indicates that appellant filed a traumatic injury claim for injury on August 23, 2010. 

 3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f) (2005); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996). 
3

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty, a claimant must 

submit: (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 diagnosed condition is causally related to the 

employment factors identified by the claimant.4 

Causal relationship is a medical question that can generally be resolved only by 

rationalized medical opinion evidence.5

 A physician’s opinion on the issue of whether there is a 

causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment 

factors must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant.6 

Additionally, in order to be considered rationalized, the opinion must be expressed in terms of a 

reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale, explaining 

the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s specific 

employment factors.7

 

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, appellant filed a claim alleging a right shoulder injury causally related 

to repetitive work activity as a city carrier. She initially submitted a July 18, 2012 report from 

Dr. Barnhard. This report is not sufficient to establish the claim, as Dr. Barnhard does not 

provide an opinion on causal relationship between a diagnosed right shoulder condition and the 

identified employment activity. The Board has found that reports without any opinion on causal 

relationship are of limited probative value.8

Appellant has also submitted a September 17, 2013 report from Dr. Tauber, who does 

provide an opinion that he believed repetitive job duties caused a rotator cuff tear. But 

identifying the diagnosis of rotator cuff tear and stating that it was the result of repetitive motion 

at work does not itself establish a rationalized medical opinion.9 The MRI scan reporting a 

rotator cuff tear was dated October 3, 2011, and the record indicated that appellant had not 

worked since October 23, 2010.10 In addition, the record indicated that appellant had not sought 

treatment for a right shoulder condition until September 2011. A rationalized medical opinion 

must discuss the relevant factual and medical history and clearly explain why the physician 

 

 4 Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994). 

 5 See Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996). 

 6 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989). 

 7 Id. 

8 R.E., Docket No. 10-679 (issued November 16, 2010); K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007). 

9 See A.C., Docket No. 11-1800 (issued March 21, 2012). 

10 Appellant sustained a work injury on August 23, 2010, and it is not clear whether her job duties were altered 

prior to the work stoppage. 
4

believes the diagnosed condition reported on October 3, 2011 was causally related to work 

activity prior to October 23, 2010. 

It is appellant’s burden of proof to establish her claim. The medical evidence of record 

does not contain a rationalized medical opinion on causal relationship between a diagnosed right 

shoulder condition and the identified employment factors. 

On appeal, appellant’s representative refers to a second opinion report in the record from 

Dr. Swartz. He notes this was from an “unrelated claim” and as such can serve no purpose in the 

present claim. In addition, appellant argues that OWCP should not use Dr. Swartz as a second 

opinion physician, citing a U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) decision. The Board notes that 

Dr. Swartz was not a second opinion referral physician in the present case. In his May 26, 2011 

report, Dr. Swartz does not discuss a shoulder injury other than to note that appellant reported 

shoulder pain and appellant asserted that it was from repetitive strain. The report is of little 

probative value to the issues presented in this case and OWCP did not rely on the report of 

Dr. Swartz in denying the claim. The record indicated that it was appellant who previously 

argued that it supported her claim. 

For the reasons noted above, appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish a 

shoulder injury due to her work duties. She 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 establish a right shoulder injury causally related to 

factors of her federal employment. 
5

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated December 19, 2013 is affirmed. 

Issued: October 17, 2014 

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