United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.W., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Eltingville, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1533 

Issued: October 20, 2014 

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 HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 26, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from the April 14, 2014 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying his traumatic injury claim. 

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 his burden of proof to establish that he sustained a 

right knee injury on October 21, 2013 while in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 22, 2013 appellant, then a 51-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging that he sustained a right knee sprain on October 21, 2013. He stated that his right 

knee began to hurt while he was walking on his route. Appellant stopped work on 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

October 22, 2013. In an October 21, 2013 narrative statement, he stated that his injury occurred 

at approximately 5:10 p.m. on that day. Appellant finished his route and reported his injury to 

his supervisor. 

In a hospital report dated October 21, 2013, Dr. Daniel Yu, Board-certified in emergency 

medicine, stated that physical and x-ray examination suggested a diagnosis of sprain. He 

addressed appellant’s treatment plan and advised that he should be exempt from work. 

In medical reports dated October 28 and November 13, 2013, Dr. Nasser Ani, an 

attending Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, obtained a history of the October 21, 2013 incident 

and appellant’s family, social and medical background. He noted appellant’s complaint about 

lower extremity pain. Dr. Ani listed findings on physical, neurologic and psychiatric 

examination. He assessed pain and effusion in the right lower leg and a tear of the medial 

meniscus of the right knee. In a November 13, 2013 note, Dr. Ani advised that appellant would 

remain off work for two weeks. On November 27, 2013 he diagnosed appellant as having 

osteoarthritis of the right knee. Dr. Ani released appellant to return to light-duty work as of 

December 2, 2013. In a note dated December 4, 2013, he advised that appellant could return to 

regular-duty work.2

 

By letter dated December 12, 2013, OWCP informed appellant that when his claim was 

received a limited amount of medical expenses was administratively approved as it appeared to 

be a minor injury with minimal or no lost time from work and the employing establishment did 

not controvert continuation of pay or challenge the merits of the case. It advised that his claim 

was now reopened for consideration as his medical bills have exceeded $1,500.00 and the merits 

of the claim have not been formally considered. Appellant was advised that the evidence of 

record was insufficient to support his claim as the facts surrounding his injury were not clear and 

no diagnosis of any condition resulting from the October 21, 2013 injury had been provided. He 

was advised of the medical and factual evidence needed and was afforded 30 days to respond. 

OWCP requested that the employing establishment submit any medical evidence regarding 

treatment appellant received at its medical facility. 

In a November 14, 2014 right knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report, 

Dr. Mark A. Singer, a Board-certified radiologist, found an attenuated versus a chronically torn 

anterior cruciate ligament, severe tri-compartmental osteoarthritis with bone marrow edema, 

small joint effusion, mild edema, infrapatellar fat body, chondromalacia and a small popliteal 

cyst posteromedially. Dr. Singer suspected chronic sprained posterior cruciate ligament and 

tears of the medial meniscus and posterior horn/body segment with superficial erosions. 

On February 10, 2014 appellant stated that at approximately 5:10 p.m. on October 21, 

2013 he was finishing up his day when he felt pain in his knee and calf as he stepped out of his 

long-life vehicle. He reported his injury to his supervisor who told him to go to the hospital. At 

the hospital appellant was diagnosed as having a calf sprain. Two weeks later he was diagnosed 

as having a torn meniscus that required surgery based on an MRI scan. Appellant stated that 

there were no witnesses and that he had no symptoms prior to his injury. 

 2

 The record indicates that appellant returned to full-duty work at the employing establishment on 

December 5, 2013. 
3

In a March 13, 2014 report, Dr. Ani noted appellant’s complaint of right knee pain. He 

provided a history of the October 21, 2013 incident and appellant’s family and social 

background. Dr. Ani listed findings on physical, neurologic and psychiatric examination and 

reiterated his prior diagnoses of osteoarthritis, a torn medical meniscus and effusion of the right 

knee and pain in the right lower leg. He recommended arthroscopic right knee surgery with 

meniscectomy as symptoms persisted and conservative treatment failed. 

In an April 14, 2014 decision, OWCP accepted that the October 21, 2013 incident 

occurred as alleged. It denied appellant’s claim, however, finding that he failed to submit 

sufficient medical evidence to establish that he sustained a right knee injury causally related to 

the accepted employment incident.3

 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 has the burden of proof to establish the 

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

evidence5

 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.6

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.7 

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

submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment 

incident at the time, place and in the manner alleged.8 

The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and 

generally can be established only by medical evidence.9 The evidence required to establish 

causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence, based upon complete factual and 

medical background, showing a causal relationship between the claimed condition and the 

 3

 Following issuance of OWCP’s April 14, 2014 decision appellant submitted new evidence. The Board lacks 

jurisdiction to review evidence for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 

4

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

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

6 G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

7 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005). 

8 Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006); Edward C. Lawrence, 19 ECAB 442 (1968). 

9 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); see 5 U.S.C. § 8101(5) (injury defined); 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.5(ee), 10.5(q) 

(traumatic injury and occupational disease defined, respectively). 
4

identified factors.10 The belief of the claimant that a condition was caused or aggravated by the 

employment is insufficient to establish a causal relationship.11

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that the October 21, 2013 incident occurred in the performance of duty. 

It found, however, that the medical evidence failed to establish that appellant sustained a right 

knee injury as a result of the accepted incident. The Board finds that appellant failed to provide 

sufficient medical evidence demonstrating that he sustained a right knee condition causally 

related to the October 21, 2013 employment incident. 

Dr. Ani’s reports and notes provided a history of the October 21, 2013 employment 

incident, listed examination findings, diagnosed pain and effusion of the right lower leg and torn 

medial meniscus and osteoarthritis of the right knee and addressed appellant’s work capacity. 

However, did not provide a medical opinion addressing the causal relationship between the 

accepted employment incident and appellant’s diagnosed right knee conditions. Medical 

evidence which does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of 

limited probative value.12 The Board finds that Dr. Ani’s reports and notes are of diminished 

probative value and insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

Similarly, Dr. Singer’s November 14, 2014 diagnostic test results which addressed 

appellant’s right knee conditions is also insufficient to establish the claim, as this report does not 

provide a medical opinion addressing whether the accepted employment incident caused or 

aggravated the diagnosed conditions.13 

Dr. Yu’s October 21, 2013 report which found that physical and x-ray examination 

suggested a diagnosis of sprain is couched in speculative terms. The Board has held that medical 

opinions which are speculative or equivocal in character have little probative value.14 Moreover, 

Dr. Yu did not provide an opinion explaining whether the diagnosed condition was caused or 

aggravated by the accepted employment incident.15 The Board finds that his report 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. 

 10 Lourdes Harris, 45 ECAB 545 (1994); see Walter D. Morehead, 31 ECAB 188 (1979). 

11 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383, 389 (1994). 

12 A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

13 Id.

14 L.R. (E.R.), 58 ECAB 369 (2007); Kathy A. Kelley, 55 ECAB 206 (2004). 

15 See cases cited, supra note 12. 
5

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish that he 

sustained a right knee injury on October 21, 2013 while in the performance of duty. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 14, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 20, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board