United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.P., Appellant 

and 

U.S. MARINE CORPS, LOGISTICS BASE, 

Albany, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-2063 

Issued: January 21, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 29, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 31, 2014 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1

 Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act2

 (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 established a right arm injury in the performance of 

duty on July 10, 2013. 

 1

 A claimant has 180 days to file an appeal of a final OWCP decision. In this case the 180th day from March 31, 

2014 was Saturday, September 27, 2014. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(2), appellant had until September 29, 

2014 to timely file an appeal. 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 8, 2013 appellant, then a 58-year-old information technology specialist, filed 

a traumatic injury claim alleging an injury on July 10, 2013. He alleged that, while performing 

pull-ups in an exercise program at the employing establishment he ruptured his right bicep 

muscle. An employing establishment human resources administrator submitted a September 9, 

2013 letter controverting the claim for compensation. The administrator acknowledged that 

appellant was participating in an employing establishment health and wellness exercise program, 

and that video evidence indicated that he was performing pull-ups on July 10, 2013. According 

to the administrator, the video showed appellant performed three sets of pull-ups and then did 

further exercise without showing signs of pain. 

By decision dated September 20, 2013, OWCP denied the claim for compensation. It 

found the evidence did not establish an incident as alleged, and also noted that no medical 

evidence had been submitted. 

Appellant requested a review of the written record and submitted medical evidence from 

Dr. Lyle Norwood, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. In a report dated July 12, 2013, 

Dr. Norwood provided a history that appellant was doing pull-ups when he had “a pop and pain 

in his right shoulder.” He provided results on examination, noting a large bulge of the biceps 

distally, and also noted x-rays showed significant spurring, and arthritis of the acromioclavicular 

(AC) joint. Dr. Norwood diagnosed acute tear of the biceps tendon, AC joint arthritis, and 

questionable rotator cuff tear. 

In a report dated July 22, 2013, Dr. Norwood indicated that appellant did not have a right 

rotator cuff tear. He stated that appellant needed surgery on the right shoulder, including 

subacromial decompression, acromioplasty, and tenodesis of the biceps. Dr. Norwood also noted 

that appellant had left shoulder multiple tendon rotator cuff tear and AC joint arthritis. 

Appellant submitted an “operative report” dated August 9, 2013 from Dr. Norwood. The 

report contains headings of “What,” “How,” and “When” containing redactions, and hand 

written notes with illegible initials. The handwriting appears to state “R (left)” shoulder, 

“Pull-ups” and July 10, 2013 under these headings. As to the typed portion of the report, the 

surgery is described as diagnostic arthroscopy, operative arthroscopy, subacromial 

decompression, acromioplasty, rotator cuff repair, and open tenodesis of biceps. 

In a report dated August 21, 2013, Dr. Norwood stated that appellant was “a short week 

status post surgery.” By report dated September 18, 2013, he stated that appellant was five 

weeks postsurgery. Dr. Norwood stated that appellant should not lift more than five pounds with 

no overhead lifting. 

The employing establishment submitted a letter dated February 24, 2014, again 

controverting the claim. Its administrator stated the last set of pull-ups was after 4:00 p.m., 

which was the end of appellant’s work shift. 

By decision dated March 31, 2014, an OWCP’s hearing representative modified the 

September 20, 2013 decision to reflect that an incident had occurred in the performance of duty. 
3

The hearing representative found the evidence established appellant was performing pull-ups 

while in an employing establishment sponsored exercise program at the worksite, and received 

administrative time while exercising. The claim was denied on the grounds that the medical 

evidence did not establish a diagnosed injury casually related to the employment incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing that he or she 

sustained an injury while in the performance of duty.3

 In order to determine whether an 

employee actually sustained an injury in the performance of duty, OWCP begins with an analysis 

of whether “fact of injury” has been established. Generally “fact of injury” consists of two 

components which must be considered in conjunction with one another. The first component to 

be established is that the employee actually experienced the employment incident which is 

alleged to have occurred. The second component is whether the employment incident caused a 

personal injury, and generally this can be established only by medical evidence.4

 

OWCP procedures recognize that a claim may be accepted without a medical report when 

the condition is a minor one which can be identified on visual inspection.5

 In clear-cut traumatic 

injury claims, such as a fall resulting in a broken arm, a physician’s affirmative statement is 

sufficient, and no rationalized opinion on causal relationship is needed. In all other traumatic 

injury claims, a rationalized medical opinion supporting causal relationship is required.6 

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence based on a complete factual, 

and medical background, of reasonable medical certainty, and supported by sound medical 

rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition, and the 

specific employment factors identified by the claimant. The weight of medical evidence is 

determined by its reliability, its probative value, its convincing quality, the care of the analysis 

manifested, and the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.7

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, the hearing representative accepted as factual that appellant was in 

the performance of duty on July 10, 2013 when he performed pull-ups during an exercise session 

at the employing establishment. This is consistent with Board precedent regarding participation 

 3 Melinda C. Epperly, 45 ECAB 196, 198 (1993); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.115. 

4 See John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354, 357 (1989). 

5

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3(c) (January 2013). 

6 Id. 

7 Jennifer Atkerson, 55 ECAB 317, 319 (2004). 
4

in employing establishment sponsored exercise programs on premises.8 The evidence showed 

that appellant performed pull-ups during the exercise period on July 10, 2013. 

The issue is whether the medical evidence is sufficient to establish a diagnosed condition 

casually related to the employment incident. Dr. Norwood has provided reports indicating that 

he treated appellant commencing July 12, 2013 with diagnoses of acute tear of the biceps tendon, 

AC joint arthritis, and questionable rotator cuff tear. It appears that appellant underwent surgery 

on August 9, 2013, but the report of record is of little probative value to the compensation claim. 

As the hearing representative noted, it is not clear from the record who initialed the notes. Even 

if it were established that Dr. Norwood performed right shoulder surgery and provided the 

handwritten notes, the reference to “pull ups” does not constitute sound medical reasoning. In 

addition, Dr. Norwood must explain, with sound medical reasoning, how a specific diagnosis 

was causally related to the employment incident. 

The medical evidence of record does not include a rationale medical opinion on the issue. 

It is appellant’s burden of proof, and for the reasons noted, he did not meet his burden in this 

case. 

On appeal, appellant stated that he was submitting an addendum to the August 9, 2013 

report clearing up the issue of handwritten changes. The Board cannot review new evidence on 

appeal.9

 Appellant also argues that, while OWCP stated that he performed three sets of 10 

pull-ups, he stopped before he finished the third set. The basis for the denial of the claim was 

not factual evidence regarding the specific number of pull-ups. Appellant asserted that the video 

evidence would establish causal relationship. The issue is a medical issue, and can be 

established only with probative medical evidence. The medical evidence of record is not 

sufficient in this case. 

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 traumatic 

right arm injury on the date claimed. 

 8 See Lucia Martinez, Docket No. 02-676 (issued September 13, 2002) (claimant was in the performance of duty 

when injured on premises, during work hours at employing establishment sponsored recreational activity); see also 

Michael A. Vestuto, 47 ECAB 632 (1996). 

9

 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
5

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated March 31, 2014 is affirmed. 

Issued: January 21, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board