United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

E.E., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, OFFICE OF THE 

INSPECTOR GENERAL, Oakland, CA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-73 

Issued: March 9, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 14, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from the June 27, 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 to review the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether the April 1, 2011 work incident caused an injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 14, 2014 appellant, a 49-year-old special agent, filed a traumatic injury claim 

alleging that he injured his right hip in the performance of duty while jumping over a fence 

during a surveillance and arrest warrant operation on April 1, 2011. He explained that he jumped 

over a fence approximately four to five feet high into an open field. Landing on uneven ground, 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

appellant felt a sharp pain in his right hip. This caused him to limp slightly and favor his right 

side while walking. Appellant later felt stiffness and discomfort in his hip. He stated that he had 

not experienced any hip pain or limitation prior to the April 1, 2011 work incident. Appellant 

submitted statements from several people whom he told about the injury. 

Appellant saw Dr. George J. Tischenko, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, on 

October 19, 2012. An x-ray of the pelvis showed severe end-stage osteoarthritic disease of the 

right hip with large spurs and slightly dysplastic acetabular. 

Dr. William B. Workman, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, evaluated appellant on 

May 5, 2014. He related appellant’s history of injury. Findings included diminished range of 

the right hip and pain. X-rays showed evidence of bone-on-bone osteoarthritis in the right hip 

with maintenance of space in the left hip. Dr. Workman noted that appellant had a pain-free hip 

on April 1, 2011 that changed acutely into chronic hip pain. “It is related to hip osteoarthritis in 

the right side and why he may have had some degenerative changes in the hip.” Noting again 

that appellant had no pain at all at the time of injury, Dr. Workman found that the accepted 

incident created appellant’s current problem, which would require a hip resurfacing arthroplasty. 

In a decision dated June 27, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s injury claim. It found that 

the April 1, 2011 work incident occurred as alleged, but the medical evidence was insufficient to 

establish that it caused his right hip condition. 

Appellant argues that his employee statement clearly stated when, where, and how the 

injury occurred, as did a statement from a coworker. He argues that Dr. Workman’s May 5, 

2014 report also provided the work-related injury details. Appellant believes that this report 

satisfies the requirements of causal relationship. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

FECA provides compensation for the disability of an employee resulting from personal 

injury sustained while in the performance of duty.2 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 that he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty, he or she must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she experienced a specific event, incident or 

exposure occurring at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. He or she must also establish 

that such event, incident or exposure caused an injury.3

Causal relationship is a medical issue,4

 and the medical evidence generally required to 

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

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant,5

 must be 

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

3 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

4 Mary J. Briggs, 37 ECAB 578 (1986). 

5 William Nimitz, Jr., 30 ECAB 567, 570 (1979). 
3

one of reasonable medical certainty,6

 and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the 

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the established incident or factor 

of employment.7

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepts that the April 1, 2011 work incident occurred as alleged. He jumped over 

a fence approximately four to five feet high during a surveillance and arrest warrant operation. 

Appellant has therefore met his burden to establish that he experienced a specific event, incident 

or exposure occurring at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. The question that remains is 

whether this incident caused an injury. 

Causal relationship is a medical issue. Appellant cannot establish this necessary element 

by submitting a claim form or witness statements, nor can he establish causal relationship with 

statements from those who heard him speak about his right hip. Causal relationship must be 

established by rationalized medical opinion evidence. 

Appellant saw Dr. Tischenko, an orthopedic surgeon, in 2012, but he offered no opinion 

on causal relationship. Dr. Tischenko did not mention the April 1, 2011 work incident or attempt 

to explain how appellant’s severe end-stage osteoarthritic disease of the right hip might be 

related to it. 

The only medical evidence that supports causal relationship is the May 5, 2014 report 

from Dr. Workman, another orthopedic surgeon, who demonstrated his understanding of what 

happened on April 1, 2011 by describing the work incident. Appellant had diminished range of 

motion and pain, and x-rays showed bone-on-bone osteoarthritis in the right hip. It was 

Dr. Workman’s opinion that the April 1, 2011 work incident created appellant’s current right hip 

problem. He explained that appellant had a pain-free hip that changed acutely on April 1, 2011 

into chronic hip pain. Dr. Workman thus based his conclusion on the temporal sequence of 

events. The Board has held, however, that when a physician concludes that a condition is causally 

related to an employment incident because the employee was asymptomatic before the 

employment incident, the opinion is insufficient, without supporting medical rationale, to establish 

causal relationship.8

A temporal or chronological relationship standing alone is insufficient to explain from an 

orthopedic or biomechanical point of view how the incident caused or contributed to appellant’s 

 6 Morris Scanlon, 11 ECAB 384, 385 (1960). 

7 William E. Enright, 31 ECAB 426, 430 (1980). 

8 Thomas D. Petrylak, 39 ECAB 276 (1987). In Petrylak, the claimant had a fever of unknown origin, dizziness and 

generalized weakness. A physician stated that he had to assume these symptoms were related to an earlier dog bite 

“since chronologically at least he was completely asymptomatic previously and has had a physical previously which 

was reported as normal.” The Board found this opinion speculative and held that an opinion that a condition was 

causally related to an employment incident because the employee was asymptomatic before the incident was 

insufficient, without supporting rationale, to establish causal relation. 
4

right hip osteoarthritis. Dr. Workman simply noted the history that appellant related of being 

asymptomatic prior to the April 1, 2011 work incident. 

Although Dr. Workman’s opinion offers superficial support for appellant’s claim, it is not 

sufficiently rationalized to establish the critical element of causal relationship. The Board 

therefore finds that appellant has not met his burden to establish that the April 1, 2011 work 

incident caused an injury. The Board will affirm OWCP’s June 27, 2014 decision denying his 

injury claim. 

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 to establish that the April 1, 2011 

work incident caused an injury. The medical opinion evidence is not sufficiently well 

rationalized to establish the critical element of causal relationship. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 27, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 9, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board