United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.N., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Minneapolis, MN, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1457 

Issued: November 4, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 10, 2014 appellant, through her attorney, filed a timely appeal from a March 27, 

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 met her burden of proof to establish that she developed a 

right shoulder condition as a result of factors of her employment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case was previously before the Board.2 In a decision dated April 5, 2012, OWCP 

denied appellant’s claim. It accepted that appellant worked as a city letter carrier and that she 

was diagnosed with a right shoulder rotator cuff condition but it denied her claim finding 

insufficient medical evidence to establish that her right shoulder condition was causally related 

to factors of her employment. In an appeal request form dated June 12, 2012 and received on 

June 25, 2012, appellant requested reconsideration. By decision dated July 19, 2012, OWCP 

denied her request for reconsideration without reviewing the merits. On February 6, 2013 the 

Board affirmed the April 5, 2012 merit decision, finding that appellant had not met her burden of 

proof to establish her occupational disease claim. The Board also found that OWCP properly 

denied a merit review of her June 12, 2012 reconsideration request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a). The facts of the previous Board decision are incorporated herein by reference. 

On February 5, 2014 appellant, through her attorney, requested reconsideration, noting a 

new medical report dated May 7, 2012 received by OWCP on September 5, 2012. He requested 

that OWCP review the new medical report and overturn its prior denial of her claim. 

In the May 7, 2012 one-page report, Dr. Paul M. Robelia, a Board-certified family 

practitioner, examined appellant for right shoulder rotator cuff tendinitis and myofascial pain 

syndrome which was occupation related. He related that appellant was first treated on 

November 3, 2011 and diagnosed with right shoulder pain. On May 4, 2012 appellant was 

reassessed and complained of discomfort in the right shoulder and trapezius regions. Dr. Robelia 

stated that appellant’s examination findings were consistent with right rotator cuff tendinitis and 

a myofascial pain syndrome. He opined that this was clearly related to her occupational 

activities. Dr. Robelia explained that there were no other activities that exacerbated the 

symptomatology. He restricted appellant to a maximum workweek of 40 hours, occasional 

reaching above the shoulder level, frequent lifting up to 10 pounds, occasional lifting up to 20 

pounds and rarely lifting up to 50 pounds. 

In a February 10, 2013 letter, the employing establishment contended that appellant’s 

request for reconsideration was not submitted in a timely manner. Further, the medical evidence 

did not establish how appellant’s right shoulder condition was causally related to her work. 

In a decision dated March 27, 2014, OWCP denied modification of the February 15, 2013 

decision. It found that the medical evidence was not sufficient to establish that appellant’s right 

shoulder condition resulted from her employment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

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

 2

 Docket No. 12-1763 (issued February 6, 2013). On January 13, 2012 appellant, then a 34-year-old part-time 

flexible city letter carrier, filed an occupational disease claim alleging that she developed a right shoulder condition 

as a result of casing and fingering mail and walking and driving to deliver mail in the performance of duty. She first 

became aware of her condition and realized it resulted from employment on October 27, 2011. 
3

evidence3

 including that he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty and that any 

specific condition or disability for work for which he or she claims compensation is causally 

related to that employment injury.4

 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 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.5

Whether an employee sustained an injury in the performance of duty requires the 

submission of rationalized medical opinion evidence.6 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.7

 The weight of the 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.8

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleges that she developed a right shoulder rotator cuff condition as a result of 

the repetitive duties of her job as a letter carrier. OWCP accepted her duties as a letter carrier 

and that she was diagnosed with right shoulder rotator cuff tendinitis. It denied appellant’s claim 

finding insufficient evidence to establish that her right shoulder condition was causally related to 

factors of her employment. The Board finds that she did not meet her burden of proof to 

establish that her right shoulder condition resulted from her federal employment duties. 

Appellant submitted a May 7, 2012 report from Dr. Robelia who stated that appellant’s 

examination findings were consistent with right rotator cuff tendinitis and a myofascial pain 

syndrome. Dr. Robelia stated generally that this was clearly related to her occupational 

activities. He explained that there were no other activities that exacerbated the symptomatology. 

Dr. Robelia restricted appellant to a maximum workweek of 40 hours, occasional reaching above 

the shoulder level, frequent lifting up to 10 pounds, occasional lifting up to 20 pounds and rarely 

lifting up to 50 pounds. Although he concluded that appellant’s right shoulder condition was 

related to her occupational activities, he did not provide adequate medical explanation or 

rationale to support his conclusion. Medical evidence that states a conclusion but does not offer 

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

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

ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

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

6 See J.Z., 58 ECAB 529 (2007); Paul E. Thams, 56 ECAB 503 (2005). 

7

 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 465 (2005). 

8 James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991). 
4

any rationalized medical explanation regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of 

limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship.9 Dr. Robelia did not provide a full 

history of appellant’s right shoulder condition or specifically describe any of appellant’s 

employment duties or explain how these specific duties caused or contributed to her diagnosed 

condition. The Board has found that rationalized medical opinion evidence must relate specific 

employment factors identified by the claimant to the claimant’s condition, with stated reasons by 

a physician.10 Because Dr. Robelia’s report is of limited probative value, the Board finds that it 

is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

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 has not met her burden of proof to establish that her right 

shoulder condition was causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 27, 2014 merit decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: November 4, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 9 J.F., Docket No. 09-1061 (issued November 17, 2009); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006). 

10 L.F., Docket No. 10-2287 (issued July 6, 2011); Solomon Polen, 51 ECAB 341 (2000).