United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.W., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Tampa, FL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0810 

Issued: July 28, 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 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 26, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a February 9, 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 merit decision of the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained 

a traumatic injury in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 31, 2013 appellant then a 54-year-old maintenance support clerk, filed a Form 

CA-1, traumatic injury claim, alleging that on that date, while preparing maintenance mail, her 

left shoulder was dislocated. She stopped work on May 31, 2013 and did not return. 

 

 1 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

Appellant submitted a duty status report dated June 6, 2013 from Dr. Claude Barosy, a 

Board-certified family practitioner, who diagnosed possible bilateral shoulder rotator cuff tears. 

Dr. Barosy noted that appellant was incapacitated and unable to perform the core functions of her 

position. 

By letter dated June 18, 2013, OWCP advised appellant of the type of evidence needed to 

establish her claim, particularly requesting that she submit a physician’s reasoned opinion 

addressing the relationship of her claimed condition and specific employment factors. 

Appellant submitted a statement dated June 28, 2013 and indicated that on May 31, 2013 

while using a postage validator imprinter which weighed 18 pounds she heard her left shoulder 

pop and dislocate. She was diagnosed with a left shoulder rotator cuff tear. Appellant was seen 

by Dr. Sara Vizcay, a Board-certified family practitioner, on June 21, 2013, for a physical 

impairment evaluation. Dr. Vizcay provided evaluation of appellant’s range of motion and 

strength. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. Barosy from June 4 to July 2, 2013. Dr. Barosy noted that 

she sustained a right shoulder injury on April 29, 2006 as a result of performing repetitive 

overhead duties and moving mail containers weighing 100 to 1,500 pounds. Appellant reported 

having right shoulder surgery in April 2007 and June 1, 2010. She noted overcompensating with 

the left arm and shoulder and developing left shoulder pain. Dr. Barosy noted that a magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the left shoulder revealed degenerative changes of the 

acromioclavicular joint, tendinopathy with a partial thickness tear of the supraspinatus, and 

infraspinatus tendon near insertion. He diagnosed internal derangement of the right and left 

shoulder and ruled out rotator cuff tear of the right and left shoulder. Dr. Barosy opined that 

repetitive movement at work resulted in tearing and damage of appellant’s shoulders. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. Samy R. Bishai, a Board-certified orthopedist, on June 27, 

2013 for a left shoulder injury sustained at work. She reported that on May 31, 2013 while 

performing her custodian duties, including preparing mail, her left shoulder dislocated.2

 

Appellant further indicated that for seven years she was overcompensating using her left 

shoulder and arm because she sustained a right rotator cuff tear on April 29, 2006. Dr. Bishai 

noted findings of left shoulder pain and tenderness, numbness and tingling in both hands, and 

restricted range of motion. X-rays of the left shoulder done on June 7, 2013 revealed lateral 

downward sloping of the acromion. Dr. Bishai diagnosed internal derangement of the left 

shoulder, dislocation of the left shoulder joint, torn rotator cuff of the left shoulder, left shoulder 

impingement syndrome, and status postoperative arthroscopic surgery for repair of rotator cuff 

tear. He opined that appellant sustained a left shoulder dislocation on May 31, 2013 while 

performing her job duties. Dr. Bishai noted that appellant was disabled from work for two 

weeks. In duty status reports dated June 27 and July 9, 2013, he noted clinical findings and 

diagnosed internal derangement of the left shoulder and torn rotator cuff tear of the left shoulder. 

Dr. Bishai noted that appellant was disabled from work for two weeks. Appellant submitted 

physical therapy notes dated June 25 to July 2, 2013. 

 2

 Although Dr. Bishai indicates that appellant worked as a custodian, the record supports that she worked as a 

maintenance support clerk. 
3

In a July 26, 2013 decision, OWCP denied the claim finding that the medical evidence 

failed to establish that the diagnosed medical conditions were causally related to the established 

work-related events. 

On August 7, 2013 appellant requested an oral hearing which was held on 

January 22, 2014. She submitted reports from Dr. Barosy dated July 9 to September 25, 2013. 

Dr. Barosy treated appellant for left shoulder pain. Appellant reported injuring her left shoulder 

on May 31, 2013 while working as a mail handler which required a lot of lifting, bending, 

kneeling, and placing trays on racks above her head. Dr. Barosy diagnosed a full thickness tear 

of the right shoulder, partial thickness tear of the anterior aspect of the supraspinatus and 

infraspinatus tendons of the left shoulder, and internal derangement of the bilateral shoulder 

joints. He recommended physical therapy. In a duty status report dated August 6, 2013, 

Dr. Barosy noted clinical findings and diagnosed internal derangement of the left shoulder and 

torn rotator cuff tear of the left shoulder. He noted that appellant could not work. On August 26, 

2013 Dr. Barosy treated appellant for a work-related injury occurring on April 29, 2006 and 

noted that she was totally disabled since June 1, 2013. 

In reports dated July 24, 2013 and February 10, 2014, Dr. Bishai noted appellant’s 

complaints of left shoulder pain with numbness and tingling. He diagnosed internal derangement 

of the left and right shoulders, dislocation of the left shoulder, partial thickness tear of the 

supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons, bilateral shoulder impingement, status post arthroscopic 

surgery repair of the right rotator cuff tear, and a full thickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon 

with tendinopathy. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. Robert R. Reppy, an osteopath, from December 27, 2013 to 

March 4, 2014 for left shoulder pain. Dr. Reppy noted limited range of motion of the left 

shoulder and diagnosed internal derangement of the left shoulder joint, a full thickness tear of the 

suprapinatus and infraspinatus tendons of the left shoulder, rotator cuff syndrome, supraspinatus 

tear of the right shoulder, tendinopathy of the infraspinatus tendon of the right shoulder, and 

failed surgery syndrome of the right shoulder. On April 10, 2014 he noted a developmental 

sequence that appellant sustained a right rotator cuff injury on April 29, 2006 which led to 

consequential overuse compensation of the left shoulder which developed into a left shoulder 

dislocation. Dr. Reppy noted that appellant’s left shoulder injury occurred when she was lifting 

a machine out of a box at work. He noted positive findings on examination and diagnosed 

supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendon tears, degenerative joint disease of the left 

acromioclavicular joint, closed dislocation of the left shoulder, internal derangement of the left 

shoulder, left shoulder impingement syndrome, status post arthroscopic surgery of the right 

rotator cuff, and internal derangement of the right shoulder. An x-ray of the left shoulder 

revealed lateral downward sloping of the acromion. An MRI scan of the left shoulder dated 

June 24, 2013 revealed degenerative changes of the acromioclavicular joint, tendinopathy, partial 

thickness tear of the supraspinatus, and infraspinatus tendons. Appellant submitted physical 

therapy notes from July 25 to September 15, 2013. 

In a decision dated April 15, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

decision dated July 26, 2013. 
4

Appellant appealed her claim to the Board. In an order dated October 22, 2014, the 

Board noted that OWCP failed to consider Dr. Reppy’s April 10, 2014 report prior to issuing a 

decision and remanded the case and instructed OWCP to consider all evidence submitted prior to 

issuance of the April 15, 2014 decision. 

Appellant submitted an October 15, 2013 report from Dr. Gary K. Arthur, a psychiatrist, 

who treated her for depression and anxiety relating to increasing physical limitations and pain 

involving both shoulders and hands. Dr. Arthur diagnosed depression secondary to medical 

conditions involving the shoulders, generalized anxiety disorder, and multiple orthopedic 

injuries. 

In a decision dated February 9, 2015, OWCP denied modification of the decision dated 

April 15, 2014. 

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 

of FECA, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any 

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

employment injury. These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or occupational disease.3

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. 

There are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that he actually experienced the employment incident at 

the time, place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit medical evidence 

to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.4

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is generally required to establish causal 

relationship. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background, 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.5

ANALYSIS 

It is not disputed that on May 31, 2013 appellant was performing her job duties when 

injured on May 31, 2013. It is also not disputed that she was diagnosed with internal 

derangement of the left shoulder, dislocation of the left shoulder joint, torn rotator cuff of the left 

 3 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 357 (2001). 

4

 T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). 

5 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 
5

shoulder, and left shoulder impingement syndrome. However, appellant has not submitted 

sufficient medical evidence to establish that her diagnosed condition was caused or aggravated 

by this incident. On June 18, 2013 OWCP advised appellant of the type of medical evidence 

needed to establish her claim. However, appellant has not submitted sufficient medical evidence 

to establish that any of these conditions are causally related to specific employment factors or 

conditions. 

In reports dated June 4 to July 2, 2013, Dr. Barosy treated appellant in follow up for 

bilateral shoulder pain. Appellant reported working for the employing establishment where she 

pushed containers weighing from 100 to 1,500 pounds. Dr. Barosy noted examination findings 

and diagnosed internal derangement of the right and left shoulder with a possible rotator cuff tear 

of the right and left shoulder. He opined that repetitive duties over the years resulted in tearing 

and damage of her shoulders. Similarly, in reports dated July 9 to September 25, 2013, 

Dr. Barosy noted that appellant’s work required a lot of lifting, bending, kneeling, and placing 

trays on racks above her head. He noted findings and diagnosed a full thickness tear of the right 

shoulder, partial thickness tear of the anterior aspect of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus 

tendons of the left shoulder, and internal derangement of the bilateral shoulder joints. Although 

Dr. Barosy supported causal relationship, he did not provide sufficient medical rationale 

explaining the basis of his conclusion opinion regarding the causal relationship between 

appellant’s diagnosed conditions and the May 31, 2013 work incident. Instead, he attributes 

appellant’s condition to the work factors of bending and pushing of mail containers over a period 

of time instead of an incident on May 31, 2013. The Board notes that the present claim is for a 

traumatic injury that occurred on May 31, 2013.6

 Dr. Barosy did not explain how work activities 

on May 31, 2013 would cause or aggravate the diagnosed conditions. 

On August 26, 2013 Dr. Barosy treated appellant for a work-related condition with a date 

of injury of April 29, 2006 and noted that she was totally disabled since June 1, 2013. However, 

his reports do not address appellant’s left shoulder condition. Rather they reference an unrelated 

right shoulder injury. In duty status reports dated June 6 and August 6, 2013, Dr. Barosy noted 

findings, diagnoses, and work status. He did not address whether the May 31, 2013 injury 

caused or contributed to the diagnosed conditions. These reports are insufficient to establish the 

claim as Dr. Barosy did not provide a history of injury or specifically address whether 

appellant’s employment activities had caused or aggravated a diagnosed medical condition.7

 

Appellant was also treated by Dr. Bishai. In a June 27, 2013 report, Dr. Bishai advised 

that appellant sustained a left shoulder dislocation and arm injury on May 31, 2013 while 

performing her duties. Appellant related that for seven years she was overcompensating using 

her left shoulder and arm because she had a right rotator cuff tear on April 29, 2006. Dr. Bishai 

opined that appellant sustained a dislocation injury to her left shoulder and arm on May 31, 2013 

 6 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee) (traumatic injury is defined as a condition of the body caused by a specific event or 

incident, or series of events or incidents, with in a single workday or shift); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q) (occupational 

disease is defined as a condition produced by the work environment over a period longer than a single workday or 

shift). This decision does not preclude appellant from filing an occupational disease claim. 

7 A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006) (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). 
6

while working. Although he supported causal relationship, he did not provide sufficient medical 

rationale explaining the basis of his conclusion regarding the causal relationship between 

appellant’s diagnosed conditions and the lifting required in her job. Dr. Bishai also does not 

have an accurate history as the record indicates that appellant’s job is a maintenance support 

clerk and not a custodian.8

 In any event, he did not explain how particular work duties would 

cause or aggravate the diagnosed conditions. In duty status reports dated June 27 and July 9, 

2013, Dr. Bishai did not specifically address whether the May 31, 2013 work incident caused or 

aggravated the diagnosed conditions. 

Appellant submitted reports from Dr. Reppy dated December 27, 2013 and March 4, 

2014. Dr. Reppy diagnosed internal derangement of the left shoulder joint, full thickness tear of 

the suprapinatus and infraspinatus tendons of the left shoulder, rotator cuff syndrome, 

supraspinatus tear of the right shoulder, tendinopathy of the infraspinatus tendon of the right 

shoulder, and failed surgery syndrome of the right shoulder. On April 10, 2014 he noted that 

appellant sustained a right rotator cuff injury on April 29, 2006 which led to consequential 

overuse compensation by the left shoulder for seven years which developed into a left shoulder 

dislocation. Dr. Reppy noted that appellant’s left shoulder injury occurred when she was lifting 

a machine out of a box at work. He noted diagnoses and opined that appellant was totally 

disabled. Although Dr. Reppy supported causal relationship, he did not provide sufficient 

medical rationale explaining the basis of his conclusory opinion regarding the causal relationship 

between appellant’s diagnosed conditions and the May 31, 2013 lifting incident. He did not 

explain how lifting a machine from a box would cause or aggravate the diagnosed conditions. 

Other medical reports of record are insufficient to establish the claim as these reports do 

not specifically address whether the May 31, 2013 lifting incident caused or contributed to a 

diagnosed left shoulder condition.9

Appellant submitted physical therapy notes. The Board has held that treatment notes 

signed by a physical therapist are not considered medical evidence as such provider is not 

considered a physician under FECA.10 

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. 

 8 See Beverly R. Jones, 55 ECAB 411 (2004) (medical conclusions based on inaccurate or incomplete histories 

are of diminished probative value.) 

9 See supra note 7. 

10 See David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316 (2006) (lay individuals such as physician’s assistants, nurses and 

physical therapists are not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA); 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2) (this subsection 

defines a “physician” as surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and 

osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law). 
7

CONCLUSION 

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

sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 9, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 28, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board