United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.W., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Lacon, IL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0886 

Issued: August 19, 2016 

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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 23, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal of a January 7, 2016 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 the case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish an occupational 

disease causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

 

 1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 After OWCP’s January 7, 2016 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence. However, the Board may not 

consider new evidence on appeal; see 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 14, 2015 appellant then a 52-year-old clerk, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2), alleging that she developed carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of manual 

sorting, casing, and keying mail, eight hours a day throughout her 28-year postal career. She 

first became aware of her condition on October 8, 2015 and realized that it was causally related 

to her employment on the same date. Appellant was last exposed to the conditions alleged to 

have caused her condition on October 8, 2015. 

By letter dated November 12, 2015, OWCP advised appellant of the type of evidence 

needed to establish her claim. It particularly requested that she submit a physician’s reasoned 

opinion with medical diagnoses addressing the relationship of her claimed condition and specific 

employment factors. OWCP also requested the employing establishment submit treatment notes 

if appellant was treated at an agency medical facility. 

Appellant submitted a report from Dr. Robert J. Mitchell, an osteopath, dated 

November 12, 2015, who treated her for bilateral hand pain, finger numbness, and tingling. She 

reported a gradual onset of pain over a 10-year period and advised that two years ago she 

underwent an electromyogram (EMG) and was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. 

Appellant reported difficulty with activities of daily living, dropping items, and limited gripping. 

Dr. Mitchell noted findings of abnormal bilateral upper extremity peripheral sensation when 

tested for two-point discrimination, decreased sensation of the median nerve distribution, 

positive Tinel’s and Phalen’s signs, normal alignment the bilateral wrists with no deformity or 

tenderness, and intact strength of the bilateral forearms, wrists, and hands. He diagnosed 

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and counseled appellant on conservative treatment and surgical 

options and alternatives. Dr. Mitchell referred appellant for an updated EMG. 

In a decision dated January 7, 2016, OWCP denied the claim finding that the 

requirements have not been met for establishing an injury or medical condition causally related 

to the accepted work factors.3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

essential elements of his or her claim. When an employee claims an injury in the performance of 

duty, he or she must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she experienced a specific 

 3

 By decision dated May 23, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s request for a review of the written record as 

untimely. The Board and OWCP may not simultaneously exercise jurisdiction over the same issue in the same case. 

Because OWCP must review its decision in order to exercise its discretion on whether to grant an untimely request 

for a hearing, it may not issue a decision granting or denying a request for a hearing regarding the issue on appeal 

before the Board. It lacked authority to issue its May 23, 2016 decision, as the case was at that time before the 

Board on an appeal of the same decision on which the hearing was requested. Accordingly, OWCP’s May 23, 2016 

decision is rendered null and void. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(3); Arlonia B. Taylor, 44 ECAB 591, 597 (1993). 
3

event, incident, or exposure occurring at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. Appellant 

must also establish that such event, incident, or exposure caused an injury.4 

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (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 

employment factors identified by the claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for 

which compensation is claimed or, stated differently, medical evidence establishing that the 

diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant. 

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is generally rationalized medical 

opinion evidence. Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a 

physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship between the 

claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors. The opinion of the 

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, 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 undisputed that appellant’s work duties as a clerk included repetitively sorting mail, 

casing mail, and keying mail. It is also undisputed that she was diagnosed with bilateral carpal 

tunnel syndrome. However, the Board finds that appellant has not submitted sufficient medical 

evidence to establish that her diagnosed conditions are causally related to specific employment 

factors. 

On November 12, 2015 OWCP advised appellant of the type of medical evidence needed 

to establish her claim. Appellant did not submit a rationalized medical report from an attending 

physician addressing how specific employment factors may have caused or aggravated her 

claimed condition. 

The only medical evidence submitted by appellant was a November 12, 2015 report from 

Dr. Mitchell who treated appellant for bilateral hand pain, finger numbness, and tingling. 

Appellant reported a gradual onset of pain over a 10-year period and advised that she had been 

diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Mitchell noted findings on examination and 

diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. However, this report fails to note a history of injury6

or offer an opinion on how appellant’s employment could have caused or aggravated her 

 4 See Walter D. Morehead, 31 ECAB 188, 194 (1979) (occupational disease or illness); Max Haber, 19 ECAB 

243, 247 (1967) (traumatic injury). See generally John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143 (1989). 

5 Solomon Polen, 51 ECAB 341 (2000). 

6 Frank Luis Rembisz, 52 ECAB 147 (2000) (medical opinions based on an incomplete history have little 

probative value). 
4

condition.7

 Consequently this report is of limited probative value and does not establish 

appellant’s occupational disease claim. 

As noted, part of appellant’s burden of proof includes the submission of rationalized 

medical opinion evidence, based on a complete factual and medical background, supporting such 

a causal relationship between the employment and the diagnosed condition. Therefore, these 

notes are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

The record contains no other medical evidence. Because appellant has not submitted 

reasoned medical evidence explaining how and why her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is 

employment related, she has not met her burden of proof. 

 An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture, or speculation. 

Neither the fact that appellant’s condition became apparent during a period of employment nor 

the belief that her condition was caused, precipitated, or aggravated by her employment is 

sufficient to establish causal relationship. Causal relationship must be established by 

rationalized medical opinion evidence.8

 Appellant failed to submit such evidence, and OWCP 

therefore properly denied her claim for compensation. 

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 her burden of proof to establish an 

occupational disease causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

 7 A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (November 14, 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). 

8

 See Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 7, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: August 19, 2016 

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