United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.W., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION, 

El Paso, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0719 

Issued: July 8, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 2, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 12, 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 a left shoulder 

condition causally related to the accepted left radial styloid tenosynovitis or to any factors of his 

federal employment. 

On appeal, appellant generally asserts that his left shoulder condition be accepted. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 22, 2007 appellant, then a 62-year-old communications operator, filed an 

occupational disease claim alleging that constant computer use at work caused left wrist and 

thumb pain. OWCP accepted the condition on May 7, 2007. 

Appellant retired on August 31, 2007. He relocated to Georgia, and on June 27, 2011 

filed a schedule award claim. In correspondence dated July 7 and September 13, 2011, OWCP 

informed appellant of the evidence needed to support a schedule award for the accepted 

condition of left radial styloid tenosynovitis. 

On June 16, 2011 Dr. Vineet Shah, a Board-certified osteopath specializing in orthopedic 

surgery, noted a six-month history of bilateral shoulder pain. He reported that appellant had a 

previous right shoulder rotator cuff repair and right elbow nerve decompression. Dr. Shah 

described physical examination findings of decreased shoulder range of motion and biceps 

tendon tenderness. He diagnosed biceps tendinitis and rotator cuff tendinitis. 

Dr. Timothy Henderson, Board-certified in orthopedic surgery, completed an attending 

physician’s report on September 19, 2011. He diagnosed left shoulder rotator cuff tear, based on 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, and physical examination.2 Dr. Henderson advised 

that appellant needed surgical repair. In a June 27, 2012 treatment note, he reported appellant’s 

complaint of left shoulder pain that had been ongoing for several months and a past history of 

surgery to the right hand, elbow, and shoulder. Dr. Henderson provided physical examination 

findings and diagnosed rotator cuff tendinitis. In reports dated July 23 through October 18, 

2012, he indicated that appellant had left shoulder arthroscopy and rotator cuff repair on July 19, 

2012 and described physical examination findings and follow-up care.3 

In a December 18, 2013 report, Dr. Chealon Miller, an orthopedic surgeon, noted treating 

appellant for bilateral knees. He stated that appellant wanted an impairment rating following a 

rotator cuff repair with some residuals. Dr. Miller referred appellant for a functional capacity 

evaluation and impairment rating. Coleen Rodney-Brown, a physical therapist, performed a 

functional capacity evaluation and impairment evaluation on January 21, 2014. She advised that 

appellant was capable of working a light to medium eight-hour workday. 

On February 25, 2014 appellant requested that the accepted condition be expanded to 

include his left shoulder. He resubmitted the schedule award claim. 

In correspondence dated March 27, 2014, OWCP informed appellant that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to support that his left shoulder condition was caused by the 

work incident or the accepted left radial styloid tenosynovitis. Appellant was asked to provide 

detailed medical information regarding the cause of the claimed left shoulder condition and was 

 2

 A copy of the MRI scan report is not found in the case record. 

3

 On May 24, 2013 appellant filed a recurrence claim, stating that he sustained a recurrence of disability on 

June 16, 2011. He indicated that, after he retired, his condition worsened and he had not done anything to injure his 

shoulder since retirement. 
3

given 30 days to respond. In an April 8, 2014 response, he listed his physicians, attached a copy 

of the May 7, 2007 acceptance decision, and correspondence from OWCP. A telephone 

memorandum dated June 12, 2014, indicated that OWCP informed appellant of the need to 

provide medical evidence, as indicated in the March 27, 2014 letter. Appellant submitted no 

additional medical evidence. 

By decision dated November 12, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim to expand the 

accepted condition to include a left shoulder condition because he submitted no medical 

evidence to show that the claimed condition was a consequence of the accepted right wrist 

injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.4

 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 employee.5

 

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to establish a left shoulder condition causally 

related to his accepted left wrist radial styloid tenosynovitis or to other factors of his federal 

employment. 

On his March 22, 2007 claim form appellant indicated that constant computer use at work 

had caused left wrist and thumb pain. He did not mention a shoulder condition. The medical 

evidence at that time consisted of an April 3, 2007 report from Dr. Bell who reported a history of 

bilateral wrist pain with a positive Finkelstein’s test. Dr. Bell provided no physical findings for 

the left shoulder. He diagnosed only the accepted radial styloid tenosynovitis. It was not until 

June 27, 2011, almost four years after appellant retired, that he alleged a shoulder condition or 

filed a schedule award claim. None of the subsequently submitted medical reports from 

Dr. Shah, Dr. Henderson, and Dr. Miller included an opinion on causation for a diagnosed left 

shoulder rotator cuff tendinitis or rotator cuff tear. OWCP informed appellant on several 

occasions of the type of evidence needed to establish that his left shoulder condition was 

employment related. In medical evidence provided, none of the physicians have explained the 

relationship between the diagnosed left shoulder condition and the accepted wrist injury.6

 

 4 Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000). 

5 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994). 

6 See Leslie C. Moore, id. 
4

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 left 

shoulder condition causally related to his accepted left radial styloid tenosynovitis or any factors 

of his federal employment.7

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 12, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 8, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 7

 The Board notes that the record contains a recurrence claim, filed by appellant on May 24, 2013. The record 

does not indicate that OWCP has not issued a final decision on this claim, and the Board’s jurisdiction extends only 

to the review of final decisions by OWCP. 20 C.F.R. 501.2(c); J.B., Docket No. 09-2191 (issued May 14, 2010).