United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bedford Park, IL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0447 

Issued: April 25, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 11, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal of a July 20, 2015 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)(1) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction 

to consider the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

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

disease due to employment factors. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On November 19, 2014 appellant, then a 48-year-old distribution clerk, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed bilateral knee pain due to 

standing on concrete flooring for eight hours a day. She described her job duties since 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

April 1997 as throwing parcels into containers and keying mail. Appellant indicated that while 

keying mail she sometimes put more pressure on one leg while working the foot pedals. She also 

noted that she was required to walk from one end of a rotary to another. Appellant alleged that 

she stood and walked on a concrete floor for eight hours a day. She developed knee pain 

beginning November 3, 2014. 

In a report dated November 17, 2014, Dr. Anatoly Rozman, a Board-certified physiatrist, 

indicated that he first examined appellant on November 17, 2014 due to severe knee pain. He 

described her employment duties of standing and placing pressure on the left knee. Dr. Rozman 

diagnosed bilateral knee degenerative osteoarthritis. He opined that there was a causal 

relationship between appellant’s condition and her occupational risk factors including kneeling 

and squatting. Dr. Rozman completed a form report (Form CA-17) on November 26, 2014 and 

diagnosed bilateral knee osteoarthritis. He opined that this condition was caused or aggravated 

by appellant’s employment activities of walking and standing. 

By decision dated January 20, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim finding that she had not consistently identified work factors. It noted that she attributed 

her condition to walking and standing on concrete, while Dr. Rozman described duties of 

kneeling and squatting. 

Appellant requested a review of the written record from OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and 

Review on February 3, 2015. She submitted an x-ray dated November 3, 2014 which 

demonstrated bilateral patellofemoral and medial femorotibial degeneration with joint space 

narrowing and marginal spur formation. 

In a report dated February 10, 2015, Dr. Sergey M. Kachar, an osteopath, noted 

appellant’s increasing knee pain worse with work. He diagnosed bilateral knee patellofemoral 

syndrome left greater than the right as well as mild bilateral knee degenerative joint disease. 

Dr. Kachar provided knee braces. 

By decision dated July 20, 2015, the OWCP hearing representative found that appellant 

failed to submit the necessary rationalized medical opinion evidence to establish a causal 

relationship between her diagnosed conditions and her implicated job duties. 

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 filed within the applicable time 

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

disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the 

employment injury.2 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

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

 2 Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

3 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 
3

In order to determine whether an employee actually sustained a traumatic 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.4

 The second 

component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and generally can be 

established only by medical evidence. 

To establish a causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant 

disability claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit rationalized 

medical opinion evidence supporting such a causal relationship.5 The opinion of the physician 

must be based on a complete factual and medical rationale explaining the nature of the 

relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors identified by 

the claimant. This medical opinion must include an accurate history of the employee’s 

employment injury and must explain how the condition is related to the injury. 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 

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted the necessary medical opinion evidence 

to establish a causal relationship between her diagnosed bilateral knee conditions and her 

implicated employment duties of standing and walking on concrete floors for eight hours a day. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted medical reports from Drs. Rozman and 

Kachar. Both physicians diagnosed bilateral knee degenerative joint disease and patella-femoral 

syndrome. While Dr. Rozman opined that appellant’s condition was due to her employment, he 

implicated different employment duties than those proffered by appellant. He attributed 

appellant’s knee condition to kneeling and squatting. Appellant has not asserted that she was 

required to kneel or squat as part of her job duties. While Dr. Rozman described walking and 

standing in his form report as contributing to appellant’s condition, this report is not sufficient to 

meet appellant’s burden of proof given the variation with Dr. Rozman’s November 17, 2014 

narrative report. Dr. Kachar did not provide any detailed opinion, merely attributing appellant’s 

condition to her work without referencing specific job duties. As the medical evidence in the 

record does not provide a clear, detailed, and uncontroverted opinion regard the causal 

relationship between appellant’s diagnosed bilateral knee condition and her implicated 

employment duties, appellant has failed to meet her burden of proof to establish an occupational 

disease claim. 

 4 Supra note 2. 

5 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.110(a); John M. Tornello, 35 ECAB 234 (1983). 

6 James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991). 
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 has not submitted the necessary detailed and specific 

medical opinion evidence to meet her burden of proof to establish an occupational disease due to 

her implicated federal job duties. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT July 20, 2015 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: April 25, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board