United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.R., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Cayey, PR, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0444 

Issued: April 13, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 11, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal of an October 29, 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) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case.2

ISSUE 

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

disease due to factors of his federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 13, 2014 appellant, then a 52-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed bicipital tendinosis and tenosynovitis as 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 On appeal, appellant submitted additional evidence. As OWCP did not consider this evidence in reaching a 

final decision, the Board may not review it for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

well as partial articular surface tearing of the anterior supraspinatus tendon due to repetitive 

movement above his shoulder and utilizing the steering wheel of his employing establishment 

vehicle for at least five hours a day. He first became aware of his condition on 

December 20, 2013. Appellant stopped work on June 30, 2014. 

Dr. Juan Echeandia, a general practitioner, examined appellant on August 7, 2014 due to 

severe pain in the right shoulder. He noted that appellant began to develop shoulder pain in 

December 2013. Dr. Echeandia indicated that appellant’s repetitive movement of the shoulder 

while casing mail and turning the wheel on his postal vehicle worsened his shoulder pain. 

Appellant underwent a shoulder magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and shoulder surgery 

on July 16, 2014. The December 20, 2013 MRI scan demonstrated a previous rotator cuff 

surgical repair, diffuse thickening of the supraspinatus tendon, diffuse thickening of the biceps 

tendon consistent with tenosynovitis, and mild tendinosis of the subscapularis tendon as well as 

inflammatory osteoarthrosis of the acromioclavicular joint. 

Dr. Echeandia reviewed appellant’s June 3, 2014 right shoulder ultrasound and found 

subscapularis tendinosis without tearing, biceps tenosynovitis, and significant supraspinatus 

tendinosis with partial articular surface tearing. 

In a letter dated September 9, 2014, OWCP requested that appellant provide additional 

factual and medical evidence in support of his claim. Appellant explained in a narrative 

statement on September 10, 2014 and noted that his right shoulder symptoms caused him to 

initially seek medical treatment in December 2013. He attributed his right shoulder pain to 

constant repetitive movement including casing mail and turning the wheels on his postal vehicle. 

In April 2014 appellant sought medical treatment from Dr. Luis A. Miranda Torres, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, underwent an MRI scan and shoulder surgery on July 16, 2014. 

By decision dated November 18, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim as he had failed to provide the necessary medical opinion evidence to establish that his 

diagnosed right shoulder conditions were caused or contributed to by his identified employment 

duties. 

Appellant requested an oral hearing from OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review on 

December 1, 2014. He submitted additional medical evidence. Dr. Miranda Torres completed a 

report on September 25, 2014 and noted treating appellant since April 2007. Appellant had 

reported right shoulder pain at that time and Dr. Miranda Torres had performed right shoulder 

decompression and debridement on June 7, 2007. Appellant improved but sought additional 

treatment on December 18, 2008 due to acromial joint inflammation. He continued to work and 

performed his normal activities. In May 2013 appellant underwent left knee surgery due to a 

meniscal tear. 

At the oral hearing on August 11, 2015 appellant testified that he had worked as a city 

carrier at the employing establishment for 25 years. He described his employment duties of 

casing mail, including reaching above his shoulder, shifting gears in his postal vehicle, turning 

the wheel, raising and lowering the window, and pulling the hand break. Appellant further noted 

that he had delivered mail to 1900 boxes, but opened and closed 800. He noted that he had a 

mounted route, delivering mail from his vehicle. Appellant returned to work in August 2014 

following his shoulder surgery. 
3

Following the oral hearing, Dr. Miranda Torres, in a note dated May 5, 2015, found that 

every time appellant was engaged in repetitive motion his pain returned. Appellant also 

submitted additional documents which were written in Spanish, including a note from 

Dr. Manual Fernandez Figueroa, a general practitioner. 

In an August 20, 2015 note, Dr. Miranda Torres opined that appellant’s condition was 

due to his job. 

By decision dated October 29, 2015, the OWCP hearing representative found that 

appellant had not submitted the necessary medical opinion evidence to establish a causal 

relationship between his diagnosed condition and his accepted employment duties. She 

acknowledged that appellant’s work duties consisted of casing and delivering mail, opening and 

closing vehicle doors, lowering and raising the window of his vehicle, shifting gears, turning the 

steering wheel, and pulling on the hand brake. The hearing representative also found medical 

evidence establishing that appellant sustained bicipital tendinosis, partial articular surface tear of 

the anterior supraspinatus tendon, right shoulder impingement syndrome and osteoarthritis of the 

acromioclavicular joint. However, she found the record failed to reflect the necessary medical 

reasoning to explain how and why appellant’s work activities would have caused or contributed 

to his diagnosed conditions. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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; (2) a factual 

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

or occurrence of the disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that 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. 

The evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence, 

based upon a complete factual and medical background, showing a causal relationship between 

the claimed condition and identified factors. The belief of a claimant that a condition was caused 

or aggravated by the employment is not sufficient to establish causal relation.3

ANALYSIS 

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

OWCP’s hearing representative accepted that appellant’s work duties consisted of casing 

and delivering mail, opening and closing vehicle doors, lowering and raising the window of his 

vehicle, shifting gears, turning the steering wheel, and pulling on the hand brake. She also 

accepted that appellant had medical evidence of a diagnosed condition including bicipital 

tendinosis, partial articular surface tear of the anterior supraspinatus tendon, right shoulder 

impingement syndrome, and osteoarthritis of the acromioclavicular joint. OWCP denied 

appellant’s claim as the medical evidence of record failed to establish a causal relationship 

 3 Lourdes Harris, 45 ECAB 545, 547 (1994). 
4

between his diagnosed conditions and his implicated employment duties. The case record, 

however, does not contain a translation of the note in Spanish from Dr. Figueroa. The Board has 

held that it is unreasonable for OWCP to deny a claim before it attempts to secure an accurate 

translation of relevant medical evidence.4

 For OWCP and the Board to properly consider all 

medical evidence of record, an accurate translation of the any medical records in Spanish is 

needed. Therefore, the case will be remanded for this purpose and, after conducting such further 

development as it may find necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for a decision as OWCP failed to obtain 

translation of the Spanish portions of appellant’s medical records. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT October 29, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and remanded for further development consistent 

with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: April 13, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 4 Ana D. Pizarro, 54 ECAB 430 (2003) (finding that appellant submitted medical evidence in Spanish, that 

OWCP had not analyzed or sought a translation of this medical evidence. The Board remanded the case for this 

purpose); Armando Colon, 41 ECAB 563 (1990) (OWCP abused its discretion in denying an employee’s request for 

reconsideration as the medical evidence submitted lacked probative value because it was in a foreign language); see 

also H.S., Docket No. 11-1170 (issued December 14, 2011); M.T., Docket No. 09-208 (issued November 9, 2009); 

A.G., Docket No. 08-206 (issued May 12, 2008), and R.R., Docket No. 13-1405 (issued October 21, 2013).