United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.A., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MAIL PROCESSING 

ANNEX, Indianapolis, IN, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1741 

Issued: June 11, 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 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 11, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 21, 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 sustained a left shoulder condition causally related to 

factors of his federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 27, 2013 appellant, then a 54-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging that on April 24, 2013 he injured his left shoulder in the performance of duty. He 

described the cause of his injury as performing “mail handler duties over the years.” 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

On April 3, 2013 appellant accepted an offer of modified assignment as a mail handler. 

The duties included sealing, patching, and repairing mail. 

On May 31, 2013 the employing establishment controverted the claim. It argued that 

appellant had not sufficiently described the history of injury or submitted supporting medical 

documentation. The employing establishment also noted that it appeared that his claim was for 

an occupational disease rather than a traumatic injury. 

By letter dated June 4, 2013, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional factual 

and medical information, including a reasoned report from his attending physician addressing the 

causal relationship between any diagnosed condition and his employment. In a June 16, 2013 

response, appellant described in detail his work as a mail handler for over 25 years. Beginning 

April 24, 2013 he experienced left shoulder and upper arm pain while performing his work duties 

that increased over time. 

In a report dated May 13, 2013, received by OWCP on July 2, 2013, Dr. James K. 

Friedlander, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, evaluated appellant for complaints of anterior 

lateral pain in his left shoulder. He stated, “[Appellant] denies any specific injuries but started 

having the pain when he returned to work at the [employing establishment]. Dr. Friedlander 

reports that he [has] been doing a lot of mail sorting and thinks he may have aggravated it 

somehow.” He diagnosed left shoulder pain and a probable chronic rotator cuff tear. In a duty 

status report dated May 13, 2013, Dr. Friedlander found that appellant could work with 

restrictions. 

A May 13, 2013 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan study of the left shoulder 

showed a small articular surface tear of the infraspinatus tendon and mild-to-moderate 

supraspinatus/infraspinatus tendinopathy. 

In a report dated June 26, 2013, Dr. Friedlander found that a May 28, 2013 MRI scan 

showed a partial thickness left rotator cuff tear and tendinopathy. He related, “It is my medical 

opinion that the long-term repetitive heavy lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling required in his 

employment with the [employing establishment] as a mail carrier aggravated his underlying 

condition with his left shoulder.” 

By letter dated July 15, 2013, OWCP advised Dr. Friedlander that appellant worked as a 

mail handler, not as a mail carrier and that he had not worked in his usual employment since 

February 17, 2012. It indicated that appellant returned to limited-duty employment on April 21, 

2013 “repairing and sealing mail.” OWCP asked Dr. Friedlander to describe the work factors 

that he believed caused a diagnosed left shoulder condition. In the accompanying statement of 

accepted facts, it noted that appellant stopped work from June 29 to August 22, 2011 due to right 

carpal tunnel syndrome under file number xxxxxx651. Appellant again stopped work on 

February 17, 2012 for right shoulder surgery under file number xxxxxx477. He returned to 

modified employment on April 21, 2013. 

In a separate letter dated July 15, 2013, OWCP notified appellant that it was adjudicating 

his claim as an occupational disease since he attributed his condition to work factors occurring 

beyond the course of one work shift. 
3

On July 23, 2013 Dr. Friedlander indicated that his June 26, 2013 report should specify 

that appellant worked as a mail handler. He stated, “The description of the duties of a mail 

handler does not change my opinion about the aggravation of his underlying condition.” 

Dr. Friedlander further stated: 

“[Appellant’s] left shoulder condition is from long-term chronic repetition which 

was aggravated by starting his new job duties repairing and sealing mail starting 

April 21, 2013. [He] reports that his permanent restrictions he has in place for his 

right upper extremity required him to lift partial and full flats of mail trays with 

his left upper extremity. [Appellant] reports that his left shoulder was also 

aggravated by doing repetitious motions of pulling and tearing mailbags from a 

roll dispenser. 

“[Appellant’s] left shoulder condition was aggravated by his duties as a mail 

handler till February 17, 2012. He was not symptomatic with his left shoulder 

during this time of inactivity. Once [appellant] started doing his restricted duties 

beginning April 21, 2013 he started having left shoulder pain beginning 

April 24, 2013.” 

By decision dated August 27, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim after finding that the 

medical evidence was insufficient to establish that he sustained a medical condition causally 

related to the accepted work factors. It found that the work duties identified by his physician as 

causing his employment injury did not correspond to the limited-duty assignment he performed 

beginning April 24, 2013. 

On September 14, 2013 appellant requested a review of the written record by an OWCP 

hearing representative. He attributed his condition to long-term repetitive heavy lifting as a mail 

handler. Appellant related that when he resumed work on April 21, 2013, he used his left arm to 

carry mail trays and place them on a repair table. He asserted that his rotator cuff tear resulted 

from work duties performed up until February 2012, but that his job duties starting April 21, 

2013 aggravated his condition. Appellant described in detail his employment duties. 

By decision dated February 21, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

August 27, 2013 decision. She found that appellant’s physician did not explain how his work 

duties before February 2012 caused his injury when he had no symptoms until after April 2013. 

On appeal appellant argues that he sustained a repetitive injury to his left shoulder 

working as a mail handler from November 1986 until February 2012. He notes that OWCP 

accepted that he sustained a right shoulder injury under file number xxxxxx477 and right carpal 

tunnel syndrome under file number xxxxxx651. Appellant questions OWCP’s reason for 

denying his claim, noting that Dr. Friedlander showed knowledge of his work history and job 

duties. He asserts that he experienced pain in his left shoulder on April 24, 2013 while 

performing new work duties that necessitated repetitive left arm and hand movements. 
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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 filed within the applicable time 

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

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

employment injury.3 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.4

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing the 

presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed;5

 (2) a 

factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the 

presence or occurrence of the disease or condition;6

 and (3) medical evidence establishing the 

employment factors identified by the claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for 

which compensation is claimed or, stated differently, medical evidence establishing that the 

diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant.7

Proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and OWCP is not a disinterested 

arbiter. While the claimant has the burden to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP 

shares responsibility to see that justice is done.8 The nonadversarial policy of proceedings under 

FECA is reflected in OWCP’s regulations at section 10.121.9

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that he sustained a left shoulder condition due to working as a mail 

handler for over 25 years.10 In February 2012 he stopped work due to a right shoulder injury. 

Appellant returned to modified employment on April 24, 2013. He alleged that his work duties 

as a mail handler until February 2012 caused his left shoulder condition and that his new work 

duties starting April 2013 moving mail trays and placing them on a repair table aggravated his 

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

3 Tracey P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

4 See Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 

5 Michael R. Shaffer, 55 ECAB 386 (2004). 

6 Marlon Vera, 54 ECAB 834 (2003); Roger Williams, 52 ECAB 468 (2001). 

7 Beverly A. Spencer, 55 ECAB 501 (2004). 

8 Jimmy A. Hammons, 51 ECAB 219 (1999). 

9

 20 C.F.R. § 10.121. 

10 OWCP properly adjudicated appellant’s claim as an occupational disease as he attributed his condition to work 

factors occurring over the course of more than one work shift.” See 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q). 
5

left shoulder condition. OWCP accepted that appellant worked as a mail handler until 

February 2012 and that he returned to limited-duty employment in April 2013 repairing and 

sealing mail. The employing establishment has not disputed his description of his work duties as 

a mail handler or his contention that he moved mail trays and placed them on a repair table using 

his left arm while performing his modified assignment. The Board, therefore, finds that 

appellant has established the occurrence of the work factors alleged to have caused his condition. 

The issue, therefore, is whether the medical evidence establishes a causal relationship between 

the claimed conditions and the identified employment factors. 

In a report dated May 13, 2013, Dr. Friedlander discussed appellant’s complaints of 

anterior lateral left shoulder pain that he believed was aggravated by mail sorting. He diagnosed 

a probable rotator cuff tear. In a report dated June 26, 2013, Dr. Friedlander determined that an 

MRI scan study of the left shoulder showed a partial thickness rotator cuff tear and tendinopathy. 

He attributed appellant’s condition to his long-term work lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling 

as a as a mail carrier. On July 23, 2013 Dr. Friedlander clarified that appellant worked as a mail 

handler not a mail carrier. He advised that his finding regarding the aggravation of appellant’s 

condition had not altered after reviewing the actual duties of a mail handler. Dr. Friedlander 

concluded that appellant’s work as a mail handler until February 17, 2012 aggravated his left 

shoulder condition and that his modified duties beginning April 21, 2013 of repairing and sealing 

mail moving flats of mail trays with his left upper extremity further aggravated his condition. 

Proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature, nor is OWCP a disinterested 

arbiter. While the claimant has the burden to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP 

shares responsibility in the development of the evidence to see that justice is done.11 The Board 

has reviewed Dr. Friedlander’s reports and notes that he provided a clear opinion that appellant’s 

left shoulder condition was aggravated both by his work as a mail handler until February 17, 

2012 and his modified work duties beginning April 21, 2013. Dr. Friedlander based his opinion 

on an accurate factual and medical history and expressed his opinion to a reasonably medical 

certainty. He did not equivocate or signify any doubt about the causal relationship between 

appellant’s work duties and his diagnosed left shoulder condition of a partial thickness rotator 

cuff tear and tendinopathy. Dr. Friedlander based his diagnosis on an MRI scan study. His 

opinion is supportive, unequivocal, bolstered by objective findings, and based on a firm 

diagnosis and an accurate work history. It lacks only an explanation of why appellant sustained 

a torn rotator cuff and tendinopathy of the left shoulder as a result of work duties as a mail 

handler before February 17, 2012 and his work duties in a modified position after April 21, 2013. 

Consequently, while the medical evidence from Dr. Friedlander is insufficiently rationalized to 

meet his burden of proof to establish an employment-related left shoulder condition, it raises an 

undisputed inference of causal relationship sufficient to require further development by OWCP.12 

Accordingly, the Board will remand the case to OWCP. On remand, it should further develop 

the medical record to determine whether appellant sustained a left shoulder condition causally 

related to factors of his federal employment. Following this and such further development as 

OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision. 

 11 A.A., 59 ECAB 726 (2008); Phillip L. Barnes, 55 ECAB 426 (2004). 

12 Id. 
6

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 21, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion of the Board. 

Issued: June 11, 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