United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.V., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Brooklyn, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1083 

Issued: August 18, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas S. Harkins, 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 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 15, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a November 26, 

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 injury causally 

related to factors of his federal employment. 

On appeal counsel contends that nothing within OWCP’s decision negates the evidence 

or argument submitted with appellant’s request for reconsideration. 

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case was previously before the Board.2 Appellant, a 50-year-old letter carrier, filed 

an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained a right hip and left elbow 

condition due to factors of his federal employment, including sitting, standing, walking, bending, 

lifting, loading vehicles, and climbing stairs. He had also previously filed a traumatic injury 

claim which was denied by OWCP in a decision dated January 11, 2011 under File 

No. xxxxxx444.3 

In decisions dated October 4, 2012 and January 28, 2013, OWCP found that the evidence 

appellant submitted was insufficient to establish that he sustained an injury causally related to 

factors of his federal employment. By decision dated August 26, 2013, the Board affirmed 

OWCP’s January 28, 2013 decision denying appellant’s occupational disease claim. The facts of 

the case, as set forth in the prior decision, are incorporated herein by reference. 

On August 11, 2014 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted 

additional medical evidence. In a May 28, 2014 report, Dr. Thomas Youm, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, reported that while appellant was working on November 23, 2010 he slipped 

and fell down the stairs and injured his right hip. He reviewed appellant’s medical history and 

diagnosed gluteus medius tear, labral tear, and internal derangement of the right hip. Dr. Youm 

indicated that he had performed appellant’s right hip arthroscopic surgery on April 18, 2013. In 

a July 24, 2014 addendum report, he opined that “the fall on November 23, 2010 caused an 

injury to his right hip” and this condition was further aggravated by his federal duties, which 

included walking while delivering the mail, going up and down stairs to carry the mail, lifting, 

bending, and loading vehicles. Dr. Youm stated that appellant’s “right hip injury became 

progressively more symptomatic as he continued to perform his repetitive hard work” for the 

employing establishment. Appellant had to stop working on June 15, 2012 because of the 

increased pain in his right hip and it was later revealed in a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 

scan that the cause of his pain was a labral tear. 

By decision dated November 26, 2014, OWCP reviewed the claim on the merits and 

found that the medical evidence failed to establish a causal relationship between appellant’s 

conditions and factors of his federal employment. Consequently, it denied modification of the 

prior decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4

 has the burden of establishing 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 

                                                             2

 Docket No. 13-1114 (issued August 26, 2013). 

3

 In its January 11, 2011 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim finding the factual evidence 

was insufficient to establish that a November 23, 2010 incident, where he slipped and fell down stairs, occurred as 

alleged. 

4

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
3

limitation period of FECA, and that an injury5

 was sustained in the performance of duty. These 

are the essential elements of each compensation claim, regardless of whether the claim is 

predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.6

 

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in a claim for an 

occupational disease claim, an employee must submit the following: (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.7 

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence. The opinion of the physician must 

be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, 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.8

 

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish an injury 

causally related to factors of his federal employment. While appellant identified the factors of 

employment that he believed caused the condition, in order to establish a claim that he sustained 

an employment-related injury, he must also submit rationalized medical evidence which explains 

how his medical condition was caused or aggravated by the implicated employment factors.9 

In his May 28, 2014 report, Dr. Youm stated that while appellant was working on 

November 23, 2010 he slipped and fell down the stairs and injured his right hip. He diagnosed 

gluteus medius tear, labral tear, and internal derangement of the right hip and performed 

arthroscopic surgery on April 18, 2013. In a July 24, 2014 addendum report, Dr. Youm opined 

that “the fall on November 23, 2010 caused an injury to [appellant’s] right hip” and this 

condition was further aggravated by his federal duties, which included walking while delivering 

the mail, going up and down stairs to carry the mail, lifting, bending, and loading vehicles. He 

stated that appellant’s “right hip injury became progressively more symptomatic as he continued 

to perform his repetitive hard work” for the employing establishment. Dr. Youm provided firm 

                                                             5

 OWCP regulations define an occupational disease or illness as a condition produced by the work environment 

over a period longer than a single workday or shift. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q). 

6 See O.W., Docket No. 09-2110 (issued April 22, 2010); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 

7 See D.R., Docket No. 09-1723 (issued May 20, 2010). See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); 

Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

8 See O.W., supra note 6. 

9 See A.C., Docket No. 08-1453 (issued November 18, 2008); Donald W. Wenzel, 56 ECAB 390 (2005); Leslie C. 

Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000). 
4

diagnoses and identified appellant’s work duties. However, he failed to provide a rationalized 

opinion explaining how factors of appellant’s federal employment, such as sitting, standing, 

walking, bending, lifting, loading vehicles, and climbing stairs, caused or aggravated his right 

hip condition. Lacking thorough medical rationale on the issue of causal relationship, 

Dr. Youm’s reports are insufficient to establish that appellant sustained an employment-related 

injury. 

Moreover, the Board finds that Dr. Youm’s reports are not based on an accurate history 

of appellant’s right hip condition. Dr. Youm stated that appellant slipped and fell down the stairs 

on November 23, 2010 and injured his right hip. However, OWCP has not accepted that 

appellant experienced an employment-related incident on November 23, 2010.10 The Board has 

held that the mere fact that appellant’s symptoms arose during a period of employment or 

produce symptoms revelatory of an underlying condition does not establish a causal relationship 

between appellant’s condition and his employment factors.11 Thus, the Board finds that 

Dr. Youm failed to provide a rationalized medical opinion on causal relationship. Consequently, 

appellant failed to establish that his claimed right hip condition is causally related to his federal 

employment and OWCP properly denied his claim for compensation.12 

On appeal counsel contends that nothing within OWCP’s decision negates the evidence 

or argument submitted with appellant’s request for reconsideration. Based on the findings and 

reasons stated above, the Board finds counsel’s arguments are not substantiated. 

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 has not met his burden of proof to establish an injury 

causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

                                                             10 See supra note 3. 

11 See Richard B. Cissel, 32 ECAB 1910, 1917 (1981); William Nimitz, Jr., 30 ECAB 567, 570 (1979). 

12 See T.D., Docket No. 12-0103 (issued June 6, 2012). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 26, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: August 18, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board