United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

W.R., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Cincinnati, OH, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1428 

Issued: October 14, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 2, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 21, 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 his burden of proof to establish an occupational 

disease in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 19, 2013 appellant, then a 54-year-old mail clerk, filed an occupational disease 

claim alleging that he developed a hernia in the performance of duty. He claimed that his injury 

was caused by his work-related duties of lifting up to 70 pounds and carrying up to 40 pounds. 

Appellant stopped work on April 23, 2013. His supervisor noted that he did not know of any 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

time where appellant had to lift 70 pounds and that there was equipment available to move heavy 

boxes. 

In an April 30, 2014 statement, appellant stated that he began noticing his belly button 

growing larger within the past four years. He visited the doctor on April 10, 2013 where he was 

notified that he may have a hernia. On April 17, 2013 appellant was referred to a specialist who 

confirmed that he had a hernia and advised him that he needed surgery. He noted that he felt 

pain on April 6, 2013, while lifting heavy sacks and bundles and moving heavy equipment. 

In a May 6, 2013 letter, OWCP notified appellant that the evidence was insufficient to 

support his claim. It advised him to submit a comprehensive narrative medical report from his 

attending physician. Appellant was further advised that medical reports should include a 

diagnosis, history of injury, and a physician’s opinion on how employment activities caused or 

contributed to the diagnosed condition. Appellant did not respond. 

By decision dated June 21, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because he failed to 

submit any medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis. 

On July 11, 2013 appellant’s attorney requested a telephonic hearing, which took place 

on October 21, 2013. At the hearing, appellant testified that he had performed his duties since 

1986. 

Following the hearing, appellant submitted an October 30, 2013 form medical report 

from Dr. John Capurro, Board-certified in family medicine, who diagnosed umbilical hernia. 

Dr. Capurro opined that appellant’s condition was “likely directly related” to work. He advised 

that the hernia may be due to other factors, but one of the factors was clearly the work activities 

described by appellant. In a November 12, 2013 medical report, Dr. Capurro advised that 

appellant was diagnosed with a hernia on March 3, 2013 and underwent surgery on 

April 22, 2013. He noted that any work restrictions should come from the surgical group that 

performed the operation. 

By decision dated December 16, 2013, an OWCP hearing representative denied 

appellant’s claim. The medical reports received on December 13, 2013 had not been considered 

in this decision. On December 30, 2013 appellant’s attorney requested reconsideration and 

resubmitted the October 30 and November 12, 2013 reports. 

By decision dated March 21, 2014, OWCP denied modification because the medical 

reports submitted by appellant were insufficient to establish that his umbilical hernia was 

causally related to the accepted work factors. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden to establish 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 timely filed within the applicable time 

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

disabilities and/or specific conditions for which compensation is claimed are causally related to 
3

the employment injury.2

 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

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

Whether an employee actually sustained an injury in the performance of duty begins with 

an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. To establish an occupational disease 

claim, an employee must submit: (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.4 

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the evidence generally required to establish 

causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 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

 

The weight of 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.6 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant claimed that he developed an umbilical hernia as a result of lifting and carrying 

boxes and mail on the job. There is no dispute that he performed some aspect of these duties as a 

part of his job. However, the medical evidence is insufficient to establish that appellant‘s 

medical condition was causally related to these work activities. 

In his October 30, 2013 medical report, Dr. Capurro diagnosed umbilical hernia. He 

stated that, while appellant’s condition could be due to other factors, one of the factors that 

caused the condition was the work activities described by appellant. Dr. Capurro opined that 

appellant’s condition was “likely directly related” to work. However, he failed to specify which 

work activities he was referring or to provide an accurate history of the injury. The Board has 

held that a physician’s opinion on causal relationship must address the specific factual and 

medical evidence of record and provide medical rationale explaining the relationship between the 

diagnosed condition and the established incident or factors of employment.7

 Dr. Capurro failed 

to indicate specific work factors which may have contributed to appellant’s hernia nor did he 

provide any medical rationale in support of his opinion. The Board has held that the mere fact 

 2 Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

3 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

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

5 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, supra note 3. 

6

 James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991). 

7 Lee R. Haywood, 48 ECAB 145 (1996). 
4

that symptoms arise during a period of employment does not establish a causal relationship.8

 

Dr. Capurro’s report is of little probative value and does not discharge appellant’s burden of 

proof. His November 12, 2013 disability status report also fails to discharge appellant’s burden 

of proof because it included no opinion on causal relationship supported by medical rationale. 

On appeal, appellant’s counsel asserts that Dr. Capurro provided an unequivocal opinion 

on causal relationship. As explained, however, Dr. Capurro did not indicate an awareness of 

appellant’s duties or provide any medical reasoning explaining how such duties contributed to 

the diagnosed medical condition. 

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 establish an occupational disease caused by workrelated events. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 21, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 14, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 8 Thomas D. Petrylak, 39 ECAB 276 (1987).