United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Deptford, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1923 

Issued: December 16, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 22, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 14, 

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 merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a bilateral hip 

condition causally related to his federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 12, 2014 appellant, then a 62-year-old laborer/custodian filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he had aggravated his bilateral hip 

degenerative joint disease as a result of his federal employment. As to his work history and 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

duties, he indicated in a narrative statement that he began work in 1990 and was hired as a 

clerk/carrier, although he performed mail handler duties. Appellant reported that he delivered 

mail and in 1999 he began working in maintenance. According to him, he did a lot of waxing 

floors, with lifting of carrier’s mail, and equipment. Appellant also indicated that he worked 

outside, using a push mower, raking leaves, and shoveling snow. 

In a report dated September 4, 2013, Dr. Mitesh Patel, Board-certified in family 

medicine, provided a history that appellant had chronic bilateral hip pain. He provided results on 

examination and indicated that x-rays showed moderate degenerative changes of the 

femorocetabular joint. Dr. Patel diagnosed moderate degenerative joint disease, bilateral hips. 

He opined that he believed “with a fair degree of medical certainty that [appellant’s] hip pain 

certainly could have been aggravated by the nature of his job which consisted of daily extended 

walking for eight hours a day while pushing heavy equipment and delivering mail for over two 

decades.” Dr. Patel reported that osteoarthritis was generally a result of excessive biomechanical 

load to the joints, a repetitive injury, and of genetic predisposition. 

OWCP requested that appellant submit additional evidence, by letter dated May 30, 2014. 

It requested additional factual evidence such as activities outside federal employment and a 

description of the development of his condition and its symptoms. OWCP also requested a 

medical report with a complete history and an opinion, with supporting explanation, on causal 

relationship. 

Appellant submitted a June 6, 2014 statement noting that after work he had to ice his 

hips. He indicated that he did not use a push mower at home and did not perform other activity 

at home that would aggravate his hip condition. 

By decision dated July 1, 2014, OWCP denied the claim for compensation. It found that 

the medical evidence was insufficient to establish the claim. 

On July 10, 2014 appellant, through counsel, requested a hearing before the Branch of 

Hearings and Review. A hearing was held on November 25, 2014. By decision dated 

January 12, 2015, a hearing representative affirmed the July 1, 2014 decision. The hearing 

representative found that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish the claim for 

compensation. 

In a letter dated May 11, 2015, appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. He 

submitted an April 9, 2015 report from Dr. Robert Grossman, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon. Dr. Grossman provided a history that appellant was seen in January with hip pain. He 

reported that appellant had knee replacements in 2011 and 2012 and was no longer working “on 

routes” at the employing establishment, and appellant related his hip pain to his job. 

Dr. Grossman provided results on examination and reported that appellant had severe hip 

osteoarthritis, right worse than left. He wrote that appellant had worked for the employing 

establishment in maintenance and delivery and opined that hard flooring was a significant 

problem with workers. Dr. Grossman reported, “While there is certainly an arthritic component 

to [appellant’s] hips that, certainly is genetic, we do not understand the biomechanics of why 

certain joints fail and certain joints do not but clearly surfaces are a factor in whether your hip is 

going to become severely arthritic or not.” He opined that “overuse for multiple years certainly 
3

is a factor in developing arthritis of the hips and I would believe that a factor in [appellant’s] hip 

disease is the work he did for the [employing establishment] for all those years.” Dr. Grossman 

concluded, “I do believe that a factor in [appellant’s] hip disease has to be the work surface he 

worked on for all those years and I believe it is directly a factor in his disease.” 

By decision dated July 14, 2015, OWCP reviewed the case on its merits and denied 

modification. It found that the medical evidence remained insufficient to establish the claim for 

compensation. 

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.2 

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.3 

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

rationalized medical opinion evidence.4 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.5 

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.6

 

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, appellant has alleged that the performance of his job duties at the 

employing establishment had aggravated his bilateral hip condition. The factual history 

indicated that he had worked several different positions at the employing establishment since 

1990, including mail handling, delivery, maintenance, and custodial work. Appellant’s job 

 2

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

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

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

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

6 Id. 
4

duties included both indoor and outdoor activity. It is his burden of proof to submit medical 

evidence establishing that this activity contributed to a diagnosed condition. 

Appellant has submitted a September 4, 2013 report from Dr. Patel, and an April 9, 2015 

report from Dr. Grossman, but for the reasons discussed below, this evidence is insufficient to 

meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

Dr. Patel opined that appellant’s hip pain “certainly could have been aggravated by the 

nature of his job.” This opinion is speculative7

 and of diminished probative value without 

providing proper background and additional medical rationale. As to a medical history, Dr. Patel 

provides no discussion of the development of the diagnosed hip degenerative joint disease, and 

the factual history consists of a brief reference to walking, pushing heavy equipment, and 

delivering mail. He does not provide any detail regarding appellant’s work history, showing he 

understood the specific nature and extent of the job activity at the employing establishment. 

Moreover, the medical rationale is limited to a brief reference to biomechanical load, repetitive 

injury, and genetic predisposition, without further explanation. 

Dr. Grossman’s April 9, 2015 report is similarly of diminished probative value. The 

medical history refers to knee replacements, without providing a medical history of the hip 

osteoarthritis. The factual history is limited to a reference of appellant working in maintenance 

and delivery, with no discussion of specific work duties and the period of time such duties were 

performed. As to medical rationale, Dr. Grossman identifies hard flooring and “overuse” 

without further explanation. He opines, for example, that hard flooring is a problem for workers, 

but does not discuss appellant’s specific work history and clearly explain how this affected 

appellant’s hip condition. Dr. Grossman acknowledges a genetic factor in the development of 

the diagnosed hip condition, but does not explain exactly how, and to what extent, work had 

aggravated the condition. 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof in this case. On appeal, 

appellant’s counsel argues that the report of Dr. Grossman is sufficient to establish the claim. 

For the reasons discussed, the Board finds that the medical evidence is of diminished probative 

value. 

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 his burden of proof to establish a bilateral hip 

condition as causally related to his federal employment. 

 7

 Medical opinions that a condition “could be” causally related are speculative and therefore of diminished 

probative value. See Kathy A. Kelley, 55 ECAB 206, 211 (2004). 
5

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated July 14, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: December 16, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board