United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

P.O., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Honolulu, HI, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1675 

Issued: December 3, 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 July 21, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 24, 2014 merit decision 

and a July 16, 2014 nonmerit 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.2

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has established that her claim should be expanded 

to include additional right hip conditions due to the June 26, 1997 employment injury; and 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 

C.F.R. § 501.3(e)(f). One hundred and eighty days from January 24, 2014, the date of OWCP’s last merit decision, 

was July 23, 2014. Since using July 28, 2014, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards, would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the postmark is considered the date of filing. The date 

of the U.S. Postal Service postmark is July 21, 2014, rendering the appeal timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1). 
2

(2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for further merit review under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a). 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This matter has previously been before the Board on appeal. On June 26, 1997 appellant, 

then a 38-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on that 

same date, she was delivering mail in heavy rain when she slipped and fell forward, twisting her 

left foot and back as she fell. She sought emergency medical treatment that same date at Straub 

Clinic and Hospital. OWCP accepted the claim for left foot and low back strain. 

Appellant initially sought treatment with Dr. Robert Sussman, Board-certified in family 

and occupational medicine. She was also treated at Portner Orthopedics and Rehabilitation 

Clinic by Dr. Elva Pearson, Board-certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Appellant 

missed work intermittently from June 28 to September 2, 1997 when she returned to full duty. 

On July 29, 1998 she stopped work and received wage-loss compensation. Appellant 

subsequently returned to work, but intermittently was removed from work. 

In a June 26, 1997 urgent care report, Dr. Florante Deleon, Board-certified in family 

medicine, noted complaints of left foot pain and pain in the lower back/tailbone after a fall at 

work. He noted that appellant complained of low back pain spreading into the upper back. 

Dr. Deleon noted that x-rays of the left foot and lumbosacral spine were normal and he 

diagnosed left foot and lumbosacral sprain. 

On July 5, 1997 Dr. Pearson reported that appellant complained of central lumbar spine 

pain with some radiation into the right buttock and thigh. Physical examination revealed hip 

range of motion was full and pain free. 

In an August 6, 1997 report, Dr. Bernard Portner, Board-certified in physical medicine 

and rehabilitation, reported that an x-ray of the bilateral sacroiliac (SI) joints revealed some 

small degenerative osteophytosis in the inferior right SI joint. 

By report dated August 6, 1997, Dr. Pearson diagnosed right SI joint dysfunction, noting 

that physical examination revealed the right SI joint was positive to anterior provocation as well 

as posterior palpation. In an August 25, 1997 report, she noted that appellant underwent an SI 

joint injection. Appellant noted significant improvement and Dr. Pearson released her to full 

duty on September 10, 1997. She returned for treatment on March 9, 1998. 

On October 18, 1998 appellant was referred to Dr. Ramon Bagby, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion examination regarding the nature and extent of her 

injuries. In his November 20, 1998 report, Dr. Bagby reported that appellant complained of right 

buttock pain and walked with an altered gait. He noted that x-rays at the time revealed a 

questionable spondylolisthesis, which could not be substantiated on a lumbar spine magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan. Upon physical examination Dr. Bagby noted range of motion of 

the hip, knee, and ankle joints were within normal limits. He opined that appellant’s current 

subjective complaints were the result of lumbar deconditioning and obesity rather than a specific 

injury on June 27, 1997. 
3

A notice of proposed termination of compensation letter was sent to appellant on 

March 24, 1999 informing her that, based upon the second opinion report of Dr. Bagby, the 

medical evidence no longer supported her claim that she had any disability related to her work 

injury of June 26, 1997. She was notified of the evidence needed to support her claim and was 

afforded 30 days to submit the information. 

By decision dated April 26, 1999, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

benefits as she had not submitted the necessary documentation in support of her claim. 

Appellant thereafter requested a hearing before the Branch of Hearings and Review. The hearing 

was held on April 25, 2000. During the hearing, appellant testified that her hip began to hurt 

after she returned to work when she climbed stairs. She noted that she was told by physicians 

that her back pain was due to SI strain. Appellant also testified that she had fractured her tail 

bone in July 1999. By decision dated July 24, 2000, an OWCP hearing representative denied 

modification of the prior decision, finding that she had not established continuing disability 

causally related to the accepted injury. 

Appellant submitted additional medical reports from her treating physicians who opined 

that she continued to suffer from injuries relating to the June 26, 1997 employment incident. She 

also continued to request reconsideration by letters dated August 22 and 23 and October 14, 2000 

and July 21, 2001. On August 29, 2002 OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

without a merit review finding that her application did not contain any new and relevant 

evidence or argument. 

On April 7, 2003 the Board remanded this case to OWCP for consideration of the merits 

of appellant’s claim. The Board found that appellant had submitted additional medical evidence 

at the time she filed her request for reconsideration with OWCP and that the reports she 

submitted, including reports from Dr. Portner, were new and relevant to her claim that she 

remained disabled due to her work injury. The case was therefore remanded for merit review of 

the new and relevant medical evidence then of record. 

By decision dated October 8, 2003, OWCP found that appellant continued to suffer from 

residuals of her June 26, 1997 work injury. It expanded the claim to include lumbar strain, SI 

joint dysfunction, and consequential major depression with consequential chronic pain 

syndrome. 

On August 2, 2005 appellant was referred to Dr. Thomas Grollman, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion examination regarding the nature and extent of her 

injuries. In an August 22, 2005 medical report, Dr. Grollman documented a history of the 

employment incident, reviewed prior medical and diagnostic reports, and provided findings on 

physical examination. He diagnosed status post lumbosacral strain without evidence of lumbar 

radiculopathy with persisting chronic pain symptoms and history of left foot sprain resolved with 

no residuals. Dr. Grollman speculated possible early right hip arthritis due to complaints of pain, 

though he also noted that appellant’s hip range of motion was satisfactory. He recommended 

further x-rays of the right hip and pelvis to determine if any arthritic process or degenerative 

changes existed. Dr. Grollman further noted that appellant had complaints of continued low 

back pain, but the MRI scan was essentially negative with no significant disc herniation and that 

there was no evidence of any lumbar radiculopathy. He opined that she was likely never totally 
4

disabled except for the first couple of weeks after the original injury and could resume light-duty 

work. 

Dr. Gary Okamura, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, noted following a March 28, 

2007 evaluation that appellant had right hip arthritis. His July 24, 2007 evaluation revealed right 

hip strain with osteoarthritis. On June 11, 2007 Dr. Hayato Mori, Board-certified in orthoscopic 

surgery, recommended that appellant consider the option of a hip arthroscopy to treat her pain, 

but he did not believe that she was a good surgical candidate for a joint replacement. 

In a medical report dated April 21, 2008, Dr. D. Scott McCaffrey, Board-certified in 

emergency medicine, noted that appellant sustained an injury in 1997 in the course of her duties 

as a letter carrier when she slipped and fell on wet grass while delivering mail, during which time 

she landed with a high amount of force on her buttocks causing compression injuries of the 

spinal column as well as an injury to the right hip. He diagnosed multiple conditions including 

severe acute and chronic right hip sprain with possible occult femoral neck fracture and 

persistent osteoarthritis with osteophyte formation. Dr. McCaffrey summarized and reviewed 

prior diagnostic reports. He noted that a June 26, 1997 x-ray of the lumbar spine revealed 

bilateral pars defects at L4-5 with spondylosis, a July 30, 1999 bone scan revealed findings 

consistent with a distal sacral fracture, a May 22, 2000 computerized tomography (CT) scan of 

the sacrum revealed osteoarthritis of both SI joints and mild bony encroachment upon the left 

L5-S1 neural foramen, and a February 15, 2007 CT scan of the right hip revealed degenerative 

spurring at the hip joint and a questionable small chip fracture of the spur at the anterior 

acetabulum. Dr. McCaffrey further noted that Dr. Portner’s August 6, 1997 evaluation noted 

small osteophytosis inferior right SI joint. Pertaining to appellant’s right hip injury, he opined 

that appellant experienced either an occult fracture and/or chip type fracture compression injury 

and would benefit from arthroscopic removal of that fragment and/or total hip replacement. 

Dr. McCaffrey noted that the mechanism of her fall, along with multiple specialists and imaging 

reports noting trauma, developed a firm nexus with the industrial injury to a high degree of 

medical probability. 

In a June 18, 2008 addendum report, Dr. McCaffrey related that appellant had 

documented hip complaints which were noted by some practitioners early in her recovery. He 

noted that he and other physicians thought her lumbar injury was the primary etiology of her pain 

and impairment, which has since been clarified. Appellant’s persistent impairment and pain, 

which included significantly altered gait and limitations on sitting or standing for prolonged 

periods, required hip arthroscopic intervention. Dr. McCaffrey noted that she recently received 

an intra-articular hip injection which provided her significant but temporary relief, providing 

objective clinical proof that she had been suffering from a post-traumatic hip disorder. 

By report dated December 8, 2008, Dr. McCaffrey requested authorization for 

arthroscopic hip surgery as appellant’s hip disorder appeared to be her primary impairment and 

pain source. 

On February 26, 2009 appellant wrote to OWCP and requested that a determination be 

made on her request for authorization for hip surgery. Due to the delay in the process she 

resubmitted the medical reports of Dr. McCaffrey which set forth her alleged need for 

arthroscopic hip surgery. 
5

The record indicates that appellant continued to treat with Dr. McCaffrey through 2010 

and 2011, and he documented her continuing right hip complaints and need for arthroscopic 

surgery. 

In a March 25, 2011 report, Dr. McCaffrey noted that appellant had cardinal signs of hip 

dysfunction including range of motion loss in the hip joint as well as myofascial tenderness of 

the muscles surrounding the hip itself. He noted that the case had been complicated by failure in 

the early stages to appreciate the level of her hip injury as it related to other regional trauma, 

most notably a lumbar disc derangement at L4-5 and L5-S1, which was causing a referred pain 

in the right buttock, right leg, and pain around the hip region thereby delaying definitive 

diagnosis through symptom masking. Dr. McCaffrey reported that appellant’s limping and 

complaints of right hip pain, which were never documented, prevented her from getting 

treatment of the hip. He referenced the report of Dr. Jeffrey Lee, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, which noted that August 1997 pelvic radiographs were notable for narrowing of the 

lateral aspect of the right hip joint with lateral acetabular osteophyte. Such structural posttraumatic pathology was confirmed subsequently in the February 2007 CT scan of the hip. 

By report dated December 14, 2011, Dr. Linda J. Rowan, a Board-certified physiatrist 

specializing in physical medicine and rehabilitation, noted that appellant was referred to her for 

an evaluation of her 1997 work injuries. She provided a history of the June 26, 1997 

employment incident and diagnosed right hip pain with records documenting post-traumatic 

osteoarthritis and osteophyte impingement syndrome, acute lumbosacral spine sprain, L4-5 and 

L5-S1 disc derangement and facet arthrosis, and T9 compression fracture with multilevel disc 

derangement. Dr. Rowan found that she did not have all medical records to verify these 

diagnoses, but noted right hip discomfort and an obviously antalgic gait on physical examination. 

On February 15, 2012 OWCP referred appellant and the case file to Dr. Tetsuto Numata, 

a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion medical examination to establish the 

diagnosis of her right hip condition and the nature and extent of her disability. Dr. Numata’s 

letterhead notes that he is affiliated with Brewer Consulting Services, Inc. 

In an April 19, 2012 medical report consisting of 44 pages, Dr. Numata reported that on 

June 26, 1997 appellant was walking on grass to deliver mail when her left foot slid, causing her 

to fall forward and twist her left leg and back as she fell down. He provided a detailed review 

and summary of her prior medical reports and diagnostic studies, including additional reports 

that she provided to him. Dr. Numata noted that appellant complained of continued right hip, 

right groin, and right thigh pain and provided findings on examination. He reported that the 

medical documentation of record supported the accepted OWCP conditions listed in the 

statement of accepted facts dated December 14, 2011 of left foot sprain, sprain of SI joint, 

sciatica, contusion of right hip, and recurrent major depression. Dr. Numata noted that the workrelated left foot sprain and sciatica had resolved, but there remained residual symptoms of low 

back pain from the sprain of the SI joint. With respect to the contusion of the right hip, he 

reported that there was no evidence of its existence in the medical record and no current evidence 

of its existence. 

Dr. Numata provided an additional diagnosis of right hip osteoarthritis, a condition which 

had not been accepted by OWCP. He opined that, based on review of the medical records, 
6

appellant’s right hip osteoarthritis likely preexisted the work injury and became symptomatic due 

to the natural progression of the disease rather than due to the specific effects of the work injury 

at issue. Dr. Numata’s report summarized the findings of the August 6, 1997 pelvic x-ray. He 

noted that the medical records clearly documented that the initial injury complaints were located 

in the lower back, right leg, and left foot with no complaints about the right hip or groin. 

Dr. Numata referenced Dr. Pearson’s July 5, 1997 report, eight days following the traumatic 

incident, which noted hip range of motion was full and pain free. Dr. Pearson’s report further 

indicated that testing and examination revealed that appellant’s pain was located over the right SI 

joint, which made sense given the mechanism of injury where she fell on her buttocks. This 

diagnosis was further supported by the significant improvement appellant noted after her 

injection which allowed her to return to work on September 2, 1997, and where she did not 

follow up with Dr. Pearson until March 9, 1998. Dr. Numata further noted that Dr. Bagby’s 

November 20, 1998 second opinion report noted that her range of motion of the hip, knee, and 

ankle joints were within normal limits. He opined that issues pertaining to the right hip did not 

arise until December 17, 1998, nearly a year and a half later, when Dr. Pearson noted pain on 

mobilization of the right hip in a capsular pattern and diagnosed right hip capsulitis. Dr. Numata 

noted conflicting findings between Dr. Bagby’s November 20, 1998 report, which noted normal 

right hip examination, and Dr. Pearson’s December 17, 1998 report, which documented pain on 

mobilization of the right hip noting that the physicians examined appellant just 27 days apart. 

He further noted that Dr. Pearson never noted complaints of right groin pain. 

Dr. Numata opined that very subtle findings of right hip osteoarthritis may have been 

developing by the end of 1998 as a result of natural progression. He noted that more than one 

and a half years of time had elapsed since the work-related incident, creating too long of a time 

period for the symptoms in the right hip/groin area to have been directly caused by the work 

injury at issue. Dr. Numata further noted that the mechanism of the injury was not of sufficient 

magnitude to have caused physical damage to the internal structure of the right hip and was not 

severe enough to cause symptomatic osteoarthritis of the hip to develop within one and a half 

years of time, where none had existed before. He noted that physical examination findings and 

symptoms recorded by the treating physicians developed too long a time after the injury to opine 

that the work injury had aggravated the preexisting condition of osteoarthritis to bring the 

symptoms to the surface. Dr. Numata concluded that appellant’s osteoarthritis was caused by the 

natural progression of her preexisting right hip condition and not due to the June 26, 1997 workrelated incident. 

By decision dated June 5, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s claim to include right hip 

osteoarthritis as an accepted condition finding that the medical evidence of record failed to 

establish that it was causally related to the July 26, 1997 employment incident. It noted that the 

weight of the medical evidence rested with Dr. Numata, the second opinion physician, who 

opined that her preexisting right hip osteoarthritis was caused by the natural progression of the 

condition and not a result of the work-related incident. 

On June 29, 2012 appellant requested an oral hearing before the Branch of Hearings and 

Review. Prior to the hearing she submitted additional medical notes of Dr. Rowan. In a note 

dated May 29, 2012, Dr. Rowan noted that she exhibited an antalgic gait, diminished right lower 

extremity internal rotation, and an impression of right hip pain, and osteoarthritis. A hearing was 

held on October 22, 2012 where appellant testified that her right hip arthritis was injury related 
7

and not caused by a preexisting condition. She further argued that the reports of Dr. Rowan and 

Dr. McCaffrey established her claim. 

Following the hearing appellant submitted additional medical and diagnostic records 

from 1997 to present, as well as copies of records previously on file. She submitted Orthopedic 

Clinic progress notes dated July 11 to 23, 1997. A July 23, 1997 note documented right hip 

tenderness. However, none of these progress notes contained a legible physician’s signature. 

The additional medical records appellant submitted prior to the oral hearing are set forth below. 

In an October 29, 1997 report, Dr. Peter Balkin, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, 

related that appellant’s pelvic x-ray was essentially normal. He reported that an incidental note 

was made of a bony spur seen arising from the region of the right mid pelvis. Dr. Balkin opined 

that this was probably a normal variation related to prior trauma and could also represent 

calcification of one of the ligaments which was also a normal variation. He noted that this was 

of no clinical significance. 

On May 25, 1999 Dr. Michael C. Ling, Board-certified in internal medicine, reported that 

a bone scan of the pelvis and hips revealed normal findings. 

In a May 28, 1999 medical report, Dr. Alan Oki, a treating physician, noted that appellant 

struck her coccyx during a work-related fall and complained of back and right hip pain. He 

diagnosed chronic low back and right hip pain which he opined was related to chronic psoas and 

iliacus myofascitis. 

By report dated September 15, 1999, Dr. Cedric Akau, Board-certified in physical 

medicine and rehabilitation, related that appellant sustained a work-related injury on June 26, 

1997 when she sprained her left foot and back. He noted that he did not have access to all of her 

prior medical reports and provided review of the reports that were provided to him. Dr. Akau 

noted x-rays of the pelvic region in August 1997 revealed sclerosis at the right SI joint and what 

appeared to be a four centimeter, calcific density spur off the spine of the ischium. This spur was 

unchanged in characteristic when compared to an x-ray taken in May 1999. The May 1999 x-ray 

also showed sclerosis of the right SI joint more than the left and the bony spicule seen 

previously. Dr. Akau diagnosed right low back pain, which he opined initially started as a SI 

joint strain, but had developed into chronic pain syndrome. 

In a July 23, 2004 medical report, Dr. Melvin Yea, a treating physician, noted complaints 

of right hip and buttock pain. Neurologic examination did not reveal evidence of lumbar 

radiculopathy and multiple MRI scans failed to show significant nerve root compression. 

Dr. Yea speculated whether appellant’s pain could be caused by a hip injury. 

On September 9, 2005 Dr. John L. Cieply, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, 

reported that appellant’s MRI scan of her right hip revealed normal findings. He noted that 

specific views of the SI joints failed to demonstrate evidence of joint space widening, effusion, 

or bone edema to suggest inflammation. Dr. Cieply further noted that the pelvic soft tissues were 

unremarkable. 
8

In a March 28, 2007 medical report, Dr. Okamura noted that x-rays of the pelvis and 

lateral of the right hip revealed mild-to-moderate arthritis with some bone spurs along the 

acetabulum and sclerosis along the acetabulum. He diagnosed right hip arthritis. 

On June 11, 2007 Dr. Mori recommended hip arthroscopy to treat appellant’s pain, noting 

that she was a good surgical candidate to treat appellant’s pain. 

Dr. Lee reported on July 24, 2007 that an August 1997 pelvic radiograph was notable for 

narrowing of the lateral aspect of the right hip joint with lateral acetabular osteophyte which was 

confirmed by a CT scan in February 2007. He diagnosed right hip strain and osteoarthritis and 

opined that appellant’s pain was probably attributable to a combination of chronic musculo 

ligamentous strain and arthritis of the lateral aspect of the hip. 

In a September 4, 2012 medical report, Dr. Jeffrey Kimo Harpstrite, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, provided findings on physical examination and diagnosed moderate 

degenerative arthritis bilateral hips, right worse than left. He noted that appellant presented with 

chronic right hip pain and a mild limp. Dr. Harpstrite recommended nonoperative treatment, but 

noted hip replacement surgery will likely be needed in the future. He recommended that 

appellant continue conservative treatment at this point until she has worsening of her arthritis and 

then hip replacement surgery could then be necessary. 

On October 24, 2012 Dr. Rowan reported that appellant had sought treatment with her 

since December 14, 2011. She described the employment incident noting that appellant slipped 

on a rainy day causing her to abruptly hit the ground on the right buttock twisting her body. 

Appellant recalled discomfort in her low back and right hip area. Dr. Rowan reviewed prior 

medical and diagnostic reports. She noted that appellant had multiple diagnostics, most of which 

did not show significant problems in the hips specifically. Pelvic x-rays in 1997 were normal, an 

undated MRI scan of the hip from the late 1990’s/early 2000 was normal, and a 2005 MRI scan 

also revealed normal. A 2007 CT scan of the hip noted degenerative spurring at the hip joint 

with questionable small chip fracture of the spur at the anterior acetabulum and a slightly 

decreased joint space of the upper hip joint area. A May 30, 2007 x-ray of the hip documented 

linear lucency, but no joint space narrowing or erosions. Dr. Rowan noted that Dr. Harpstrite 

diagnosed moderate degenerative arthritis of bilateral hips. She diagnosed low back pain related 

to degenerative changes, a T9 compression fracture, and facet arthrosis. 

In a November 5, 2012 medical report, Dr. Patrick Murray, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, confirmed by written statement that he initially evaluated appellant on July 11, 2007 

and diagnosed early symptomatic arthritis to the hip following a problem with her back 

subsequent to a fall some 10 years earlier. 

By decision dated December 10, 2012, the Branch of Hearings and Review affirmed 

OWCP’s June 5, 2012 decision finding that the evidence of record failed to establish that her 

right hip osteoarthritis was caused by the June 26, 1997 employment incident. The hearing 

representative noted that the weight of the medical evidence remained with Dr. Numata serving 

as the second opinion physician as he offered an opinion based on an accurate history, 

examination findings, and a detailed review of the diagnostic tests and physicians’ reports of 

record. The hearing representative further noted that the record did not contain any medical 
9

record supportive of a causal relationship between appellant’s accepted work injury and her 

claimed hip condition. 

On December 4, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration of the December 10, 2012 

decision. She made allegations including fraud, conspiracy, abuse of power, and gross 

negligence, arguing that the medical staff who evaluated her on June 26, 1997 failed to document 

and ignored her numerous right hip complaints. Appellant further argued that Dr. Numata did 

not review numerous medical reports and did not have an accurate history of injury, stating that 

she was initially misdiagnosed with low back strain. In support of her claim, she submitted 

medical reports previously of record as well as a November 15, 2013 medical report of 

Dr. Rowan who noted that review of a June 16, 1999 medical report from Straub Clinic and 

Hospital indicated that appellant had a long-standing history of right hip and low back pain 

which was related to a 1997 work injury. Dr. Rowan noted that appellant had complained of 

significant right hip pain, which made it difficult for her to walk, causing her to walk with a 

limp. She opined that appellant’s prior medical reports documented post-traumatic arthritis and 

osteophyte impingement syndrome. 

By decision dated January 24, 2014, OWCP affirmed the December 10, 2012 decision 

finding that the evidence of record failed to establish that appellant’s right hip osteoarthritis was 

caused by the June 26, 1997 employment incident. It noted that the medical reports submitted 

were insufficient to overcome the weight of the medical evidence provided to Dr. Numata’s 

report. OWCP further noted that appellant’s allegations of conspiracy, abuse of power, abuse 

toward injured workers, and gross negligence were not relevant to the issue at hand which 

required medical evidence to establish causation. 

On April 1, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s decision. She provided 

a statement which repeated prior arguments and allegations made, including fraudulent and 

falsified medical records, errors in the facts, fraud by OWCP for failing to review all of the 

medical reports, and insufficiency in Dr. Numata’s report. The only medical evidence submitted 

in support of appellant’s request for consideration was a handwritten clinic note from Dr. Rowan 

which clearly does not contain an opinion as to the cause of the claimant’s hip condition. 

By decision dated July 16, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

finding that she neither raised substantive legal questions nor included new and relevant 

evidence. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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 or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the 
10

employment injury.3

 These are the essential elements of every compensation claim regardless of 

whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4

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 based on a complete factual and medical background, supporting such 

a causal relationship.5

 The opinion of the physician 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 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 -- ISSUE 1 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left foot sprain, low back sprain, SI region sprain 

not otherwise classified, sciatica, SI ligament sprain, major depression recurrent episode, and 

right hip contusion. By decision dated January 24, 2014, it denied her request to expand her 

claim to include her additional right hip conditions. The issue on appeal is whether appellant has 

established that her right hip osteoarthritis is causally related to the accepted June 26, 1997 

employment incident. The Board finds that she has failed to meet her burden of proof.7

In its January 24, 2014 decision, OWCP determined that the weight of the medical 

evidence rested with Dr. Numata, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon serving as the second 

opinion physician. The Board finds that his well-rationalized report, which was based upon a 

proper factual and medical background, represents the weight of the medical evidence and 

establishes that appellant’s right hip osteoarthritis was not caused by the June 26, 1997 

employment incident.8

In his April 19, 2012 medical report, Dr. Numata opined that appellant’s preexisting right 

hip osteoarthritis was caused by the natural progression of the condition and was not a result of 

the June 26, 1997 employment incident. He provided a detailed history of injury, findings on 

physical examination, and review and summary of her prior medical reports and diagnostic 

studies, including those she provided to him. Dr. Numata noted that there was no evidence of the 

accepted right hip contusion in the medical record as the records clearly documented that the 

initial injury complaints were located in the lower back, right leg, and left foot with no 

 3 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1154 (1989). 

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

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

6 James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991). 

7 P.B., Docket No. 13-951 (issued September 10, 2013). 

8 Y.M., Docket No. 14-1050, 14-1193 (issued December 24, 2014). 
11

complaints about the right hip or groin. He further noted that there was no current evidence of 

existence right hip contusion. Dr. Numata diagnosed right hip osteoarthritis, a condition not 

accepted by OWCP, explaining that the condition likely preexisted the work injury and became 

symptomatic due to the natural progression of the disease rather than due to the specific effects 

of the work injury at issue. 

The Board has carefully reviewed the opinion of Dr. Numata and finds that it has 

reliability, probative value, and a convincing quality with respect to its conclusions regarding the 

issue presented on appeal.9

 Dr. Numata’s opinion is based on a proper factual and medical 

history and he thoroughly reviewed the factual and medical history by accurately summarizing 

the relevant medical evidence.10 As noted, he provided medical rationale for his opinion by 

explaining that the medical records clearly documented that the initial injury complaints were 

located in the lower back, right leg, and left foot with no complaints pertaining to the right hip or 

groin. Dr. Numata referenced Dr. Pearson’s July 5, 1997 report, eight days following the 

traumatic incident, which noted hip range of motion was full and pain free. Dr. Pearson’s report 

further indicated that testing and examination revealed that appellant’s pain was located over the 

right SI joint, which made sense given the mechanism of injury when she fell on her buttocks. 

This diagnosis was further supported by the significant improvement appellant noted after her 

initial injection, allowing her to return to work on September 2, 1997 with no follow up with 

Dr. Pearson until March 9, 1998. Dr. Numata further explained that the mechanism of the injury 

was not of sufficient magnitude to have caused physical damage to the internal structure of the 

right hip. Moreover, it was not severe enough to cause symptomatic osteoarthritis of the hip to 

develop within one and a half years of time, where none had existed before. Dr. Numata 

provided support for this assertion documenting that issues pertaining to the right hip did not 

arise until December 17, 1998 when Dr. Pearson noted pain on mobilization in a capsular pattern 

and diagnosed right hip capsulitis. There were also no documented reports of right groin pain 

contained in the record. Dr. Numata further noted that Dr. Pearson’s findings were contradicted 

by Dr. Bagby’s November 20, 1998 evaluation the month before which noted a normal right hip 

examination. 

Dr. Numata provided support for his arguments and addressed prior medical reports and 

diagnostic studies.11 He specifically addressed the findings of the August 6, 1997 pelvic x-ray, 

yet maintained that appellant’s right hip osteoarthritis was not caused or aggravated by the 

June 26, 2007 employment incident. Dr. Numata opined that she had a preexisting degenerative 

right hip condition, which was unaltered by the June 26, 1997 injury, explaining that very subtle 

findings of right hip osteoarthritis may have been developing by the end of 1998 as a result of 

natural progression. Thus, his opinion is entitled to special weight and establishes that 

appellant’s right hip osteoarthritis was not caused by the June 26, 1997 employment incident.12

 9 See R.W., Docket No. 12-375 (issued October 28, 2013). 

10 See Melvina Jackson, 38 ECAB 443 (1987). 

11 See G.P., Docket No. 14-395 (issued June 5, 2014). 

12 A.H., Docket No. 13-266 (issued October 24, 2013) (the reports of appellant’s attending physicians were 

insufficient to establish a recurrence of disability. OWCP relied on the report of the second opinion physician in 

denying appellant’s claim). 
12

Subsequent to Dr. Numata’s April 19, 2012 report, appellant submitted various medical 

reports, many of which were previously of record, in support of her claim. 

In medical reports dated December 14, 2011 to November 15, 2013, Dr. Rowan reported 

that appellant sustained a work-related injury on June 26, 1997 when she slipped and fell, 

causing her to abruptly hit the ground. She reported that review of a June 16, 1999 medical 

report from Straub Clinic and Hospital indicated that appellant had a long-standing history of 

right hip and low back pain which was related to a 1997 work injury. Dr. Rowan noted that 

appellant had complained of significant right hip pain which caused her to walk with a limp. She 

stated that appellant’s prior medical reports documented post-traumatic arthritis and osteophyte 

impingement syndrome. 

The Board finds that the opinion of Dr. Rowan is not well rationalized.13 Dr. Rowan first 

treated appellant on December 14, 2011 more than 14 years after the employment incident. She 

noted a diagnosis of post-traumatic arthritis and osteophyte impingement syndrome based on 

review of appellant’s medical record. However, Dr. Rowan failed to give any opinion regarding 

the cause of appellant’s condition and only generally noted that a June 16, 1999 medical report 

from Straub Clinic and Hospital indicated a long-standing history of right hip and low back pain 

which was related to a 1997 work injury. She further noted that pelvic x-rays in 1997 were 

normal, the MRI scan of the hip in the late 1990’s/early 2000 was normal, and a 2005 MRI scan 

also revealed normal. Based on her review of the diagnostic studies, Dr. Rowan did not dispute 

that appellant’s right hip showed normal findings subsequent to the employment incident until a 

2007 CT scan of the hip. This does not provide support for a long-standing history of right hip 

pain stemming from a 1997 work-related incident. Moreover, the Board has held that medical 

evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of 

limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship.14 Without medical reasoning 

explaining how the June 26, 1997 employment incident caused or contributed to appellant’s right 

hip osteoarthritis, Dr. Rowan’s reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.15

In medical reports dated April 21, 2008 to March 25, 2011, Dr. McCaffrey reported that 

appellant sustained an injury in 1997 in the course of her duties as a letter carrier when she 

slipped and fell on wet grass while delivering mail, during which time she landed with a high 

amount of force on her buttocks causing compression injuries of the spinal column as well as an 

injury to the right hip. He diagnosed multiple conditions including severe acute and chronic 

right hip sprain with possible occult femoral neck fracture and persistent osteoarthritis with 

osteophyte formation. Dr. McCaffrey summarized and reviewed prior diagnostic reports and 

opined that appellant experienced either an occult fracture and/or chip type fracture compression 

injury. He opined that her documented hip complaints were related to her workplace fall as the 

mechanism of the fall correlated with the development of trauma as confirmed by prior medical 

reports and diagnostic findings. 

 13 C.B., Docket No. 08-1583 (issued December 9, 2008). 

14 C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009).

15 As this report does not provide a clear opinion on the causal relationship between appellant’s diagnosed 

condition and the employment incident, it cannot meet her burden of proof. D.H., Docket No. 13-1085 (issued 

September 18, 2013). 
13

The Board finds that the opinion of Dr. McCaffrey is not well rationalized and is 

insufficient to overcome the weight of the medical evidence afforded to Dr. Numata.16 

Dr. McCaffrey noted that the case had been complicated by failure in the early stages to 

appreciate the level of appellant’s hip injury as it related to other regional trauma, most notably a 

lumbar disc derangement at L4-5 and L5-S1, which was causing a referred pain in the right 

buttock and right leg pain around the hip region, thereby delaying definitive diagnosis through 

symptom masking. He reported that her limping and complaints of right hip pain, which were 

never documented, prevented her from getting treatment of the hip. Dr. McCaffrey failed, 

however, to explain why appellant exhibited no physical findings of a hip condition and had 

findings of full range of motion. He noted that a 2008 intra-articular hip injection provided her 

significant but temporary relief, and referenced this as objective clinical proof that she had been 

suffering from a post-traumatic hip disorder. However, the reports of Dr. Pearson and 

Dr. Portner, dating back to the initial injury in 1997 and 1998, reflect that injections to the SI 

joint provided appellant significant relief. Moreover, treatment to the SI joint following the 

June 26, 1997 employment incident was verified by subjective complaints, physical examination, 

and objective clinical findings. Relief from an intra-articular hip injection more than 11 years 

after the initial employment incident is not probative medical evidence of a work-related posttraumatic hip disorder. Furthermore, an August 1997 pelvic radiograph which noted some small 

degenerative osteophytosis in the inferior right sacroiliac joint also does not rise to the level of 

probative medical evidence supporting a finding of causal relationship as expressed by 

Dr. McCaffrey.17 

Dr. McCaffrey’s opinion on causation is further deficient as he failed to explain why 

appellant’s right hip complaints were not caused by a preexisting degenerative arthritic 

condition. His report provided no discussion regarding whether preexisting osteoarthritis had 

progressed beyond what might be expected from the natural progression of that condition.18 A 

well-rationalized opinion is particularly warranted when there is a history of a preexisting 

condition.19 Dr. McCaffrey’s statement on causation fails to provide a sufficient explanation as 

to the mechanism of injury and did not adequately explain how the June 26, 1997 employment 

incident would cause or aggravate her preexisting right hip osteoarthritis. Medical reports 

without adequate rationale on causal relationship are of diminished probative value and do not 

meet an employee’s burden of proof.20 The opinion of a physician supporting causal relationship 

must rest on a complete factual and medical background supported by affirmative evidence, 

address the specific factual and medical evidence of record, and provide medical rationale 

 16 See generally Floyd Stilley, Docket No. 02-2016 (issued February 19, 2003) (the claimant’s attending physician 

based his opinion on an inaccurate history, while OWCP referral physician based his opinion on a thorough review 

of the factual and medical evidence of record, an accurate history of injury, and the results of objective testing. The 

Board held that the weight of the medical opinion rested with OWCP’s referral physician). 

17 See K.P., Docket No. 14-1330 (issued October 17, 2014). 

18 R.E., Docket No. 14-868 (issued September 24, 2014). 

19 The Board has held that an opinion that a condition is causally related because the employee was asymptomatic 

before the injury is insufficient, without adequate rationale, to establish causal relationship. T.M., Docket No. 08-

975 (issued February 6, 2009); Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379 (2006). 

20 Ceferino L. Gonzales, 32 ECAB 1591 (1981). 
14

explaining the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the established incident or 

factor of employment.21 Without explaining how physiologically the movements involved in the 

employment incident caused or contributed to the diagnosed conditions, Dr. McCaffrey’s 

opinion is of limited probative value and insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.22 

Appellant argues that a July 23, 1997 orthopedic clinic progress note, which references 

right hip tenderness, establishes proof of a work-related right hip injury. As previously 

discussed, the Board notes that the report does not contain a legible signature establishing that it 

was signed by a physician.23 Moreover, the report is an isolated report of a symptom without a 

diagnosis of a verifiable medical condition in the hip. 

Appellant further references Dr. Portner’s August 6, 1997 pelvic x-ray as evidence of a 

work-related right hip injury. This diagnostic report is also insufficient to establish that her right 

hip osteoarthritis was caused or aggravated by the employment incident as the physician only 

noted small degenerative osteophytosis in the inferior right SI joint and made no findings 

pertaining to the right hip.24 Additionally, Dr. Balkin’s October 29, 1997 report is of no 

probative value as he noted that a pelvic x-ray revealed a possible bony spur arising from the 

region of the right mid pelvis, which he opined was of no clinical significance.25 

Dr. Lee’s July 24, 2007 report noted that the August 1997 pelvic radiograph was notable 

for narrowing of the lateral aspect of the right hip joint with lateral acetabular osteophyte, which 

was confirmed by a February 2007 CT scan. However, he failed to explain how the findings of 

the August 1997 pelvic x-ray, which both Dr. Ragby and Dr. Grollman found to be insufficient 

evidence of a definitive right hip condition, established that osteoarthritis seen on a 

February 2007 right hip CT scan confirmed the existence or aggravation of this condition dating 

back 10 years to the injury in 1997. Dr. Lee diagnosed right hip strain and osteoarthritis and 

opined that appellant’s pain was probably attributable to a combination of chronic musculo 

ligamentous strain and arthritis of the lateral aspect of the hip. His opinion is of limited 

probative value as he failed to give any definitive, rationalized medical opinion regarding the 

cause of her injury.26

The Board notes that appellant’s argument that Dr. Numata did not thoroughly review the 

medical record is without merit. Dr. Numata’s report provided detailed review of her prior 

medical reports including those provided to him by her. While Dr. Numata did not summarize 

every report in the record, this does not mean that these reports were not reviewed. There is no 

 21 See Lee R. Haywood, 48 ECAB 145 (1996). 

22 See L.M., Docket No. 14-973 (issued August 25, 2014); R.G., Docket No. 14-113 (issued April 25, 2014); 

K.M., Docket No. 13-1459 (issued December 5, 2013); A.J., Docket No. 12-548 (issued November 16, 2012). 

23 A report that is unsigned or bears an illegible signature and lacks proper identification cannot be considered 

probative medical evidence. Thomas L. Agee, 56 ECAB 465 (2005); Richard F. Williams, 55 ECAB 343 (2004). 

24 D.U., Docket No. 14-1670 (issued December 15, 2014). 

25 Id. 

26 D.K., 59 ECAB 141 (2007). 
15

requirement that an examining physician must list every medical report reviewed.27 Medical 

reports should contain dates of examination or treatment, clinical history, detailed description of 

physical findings, results of x-ray or laboratory tests, diagnosis, prognosis, description of 

impairment if any, specific limitations for work, clinical course of treatment, a reasoned opinion 

on causal relationship, and a detailed description of the employee’s work tolerance limitations in 

any case where the issue is the claimant’s ability to return to work.28 The record reveals that 

OWCP sent appellant’s medical records to Dr. Numata at the time of the referral and his report 

establishes that he reviewed the medical record provided in reaching his conclusions.29 

The remaining medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim as 

the physicians failed to provide a rationalized opinion that her right hip osteoarthritis was caused 

by the June 26, 1997 employment incident.30 

On appeal, appellant argues that at the very least a conflict has been created between 

Dr. Numata, serving as the second opinion physician and her attending physicians. When two 

physicians give reasoned but differing opinions concerning causal relationship and one 

physician’s opinion is based on an inaccurate or incomplete factual or medical background, the 

opinion based on an accurate factual or medical history typically has more probative value.31 For 

the reasons noted above, the opinions of Dr. Rowan and Dr. McCaffrey were not fully 

rationalized to create a conflict in the case. Dr. Numata provided a well-reasoned medical 

opinion based on a complete medical background using both subjective and objective findings.32 

Therefore, his opinion was properly afforded the weight of the evidence. 

Appellant’s belief that the June 26, 1997 employment incident caused her medical 

problem is not in question. But that belief, however, sincerely held, does not constitute the 

medical evidence necessary to establish causal relationship. Because appellant has failed to 

submit a well-rationalized medical report establishing that her right hip osteoarthritis was caused 

or aggravated by the June 27, 1997 employment incident, she has failed to meet her burden of 

proof.33

 27 S.N., Docket No. 12-123 (issued June 12, 2012). 

28 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Medical Examinations, Chapter 3.500.3(c)(3) 

(July 2011). 

29 Id. 

30 S.M., Docket No. 14-1056 (issued August 22, 2014). 

31 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Developing and Evaluating Medical Evidence, Chapter 

2.810.6(a)(1) (September 2010). 

32 A well-reasoned medical opinion should also be consistent with the findings upon examination. Findings may 

be noted during physical examination, laboratory testing, and diagnostic procedures. Sufficient objective data 

(findings on examination, test results) should be included in the report to support the medical conclusions. Id. at 

Chapter 2.810.6(a)(2). 

33 See generally Michael Hughes, 52 ECAB 387 (2001); Howard Y. Miyashiro, 43 ECAB 1101, 1115 (1992); 

Dorothy Sidwell, 41 ECAB 857 (1990). 
16

Appellant may submit additional evidence, together with a written request for 

reconsideration, to OWCP within one year of the Board’s merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.606 and 10.607. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under FECA section 8128(a), OWCP 

regulations provide that the evidence or argument submitted by a claimant must: (1) show that 

OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advance a relevant legal 

argument not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitute relevant and pertinent new 

evidence not previously considered by OWCP.34 Section 10.608(b) of OWCP regulations 

provide that when an application for reconsideration does not meet at least one of the three 

requirements enumerated under section 10.606(b)(3), OWCP will deny the application for 

reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on the merits.35

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

The Board finds that the refusal of OWCP to reopen appellant’s case for further 

consideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a), did not constitute an 

abuse of discretion. 

The issue presented on appeal is whether appellant met any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3), requiring OWCP to reopen the case for review of the merits of the claim. 

In her November 19, 2013 application for reconsideration, appellant did not show that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law. She did not advance a new and 

relevant legal argument. Appellant’s arguments were the same as those set forth in her June 29, 

2012 and December 4, 2013 requests for reconsideration, arguing, inter alia, fraud, conspiracy, 

abuse of power, and negligence. The Board has held that material which is duplicative of that 

already contained in the case record does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.36 

Furthermore, where the legal argument presented has no basis in fact or precedent, OWCP is not 

required to reopen the case for merit review.37 

Appellant also argued that Dr. Numata did not review numerous medical reports and did 

not have an accurate history of injury, stating that she was initially misdiagnosed with low back 

strain. As previously noted, there is no requirement that an examining physician must list every 

medical report reviewed.38 Appellant further asserts that OWCP did not review all of her 

medical records. The Board notes that OWCP’s June 5 and December 10, 2012, and January 24, 

2014 decisions discussed the documents submitted to the record on reconsideration.39 Moreover, 34 D.K., 59 ECAB 141 (2007). 

35 K.H., 59 ECAB 495 (2008). 

36 J.B., Docket No. 14-1164 (issued November 20, 2014). See Kenneth R. Mroczkowski, 40 ECAB 855 (1989). 

37 B.J., Docket No. 14-1028 (issued September 17, 2014). See also Norman W. Hanson, 40 ECAB 1160 (1989). 

38 Supra note 29. 

39 Supra note 43. 
17

OWCP is not required to list every piece of evidence in the record.40 There is no basis to 

conclude that OWCP failed to consider the documents submitted. Moreover, OWCP is not 

required to list every piece of evidence in the record. 

The Board notes that the underlying issue in this case was whether appellant’s right hip 

osteoarthritis was caused or aggravated by the June 26, 1997 employment incident. That is a 

medical issue which must be addressed by relevant medical evidence.41 Appellant, however, 

failed to submit new and relevant medical evidence in support of her claim. 

The only medical evidence received was a June 24, 2014 clinic note from Dr. Rowan 

which did not provide a diagnosis or opinion that appellant’s right hip osteoarthritis was caused 

by the June 26, 1997 employment incident. Appellant failed to provide detailed medical 

rationale from a physician to explain and support the medical opinion that her diagnosed right 

hip osteoarthritis was caused by the June 26, 1997 employment incident.42 The Board has held 

that the submission of evidence which does not address the particular issue involved does not 

constitute a basis for reopening a case.43 A claimant may obtain a merit review of an OWCP 

decision by submitting new and relevant evidence. In this case, while appellant submitted new 

evidence, it was not relevant in addressing causal relationship.44 

The Board accordingly finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a 

specific point of law, advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP, or 

constitute relevant and pertinent evidence not previously considered. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review. 

On appeal, appellant asserts that she was denied due process because her claim was 

denied merit review, the Board notes that this argument would be related to a constitutional 

question. The Supreme Court has held that constitutional questions are unsuited to resolution in 

administrative hearing procedures.45 As the Board is an administrative body, it does not have 

jurisdiction to review a constitutional claim such as that made by appellant.46 The federal courts 

retain jurisdiction over decisions under FECA where there is a charge of a violation of a clear 

statutory mandate or there is a constitutional due process claim.47 The Board notes that 

 40 C.f. K.L., Docket No. 14-1218 (issued October 24, 2014). 

41 See Bobbie F. Cowart, 55 ECAB 746 (2004). 

42 See George Randolph Taylor, 6 ECAB 986, 988 (1954) (where the Board found that a medical opinion not 

fortified by medical rationale is of little probative value). 

43 Jimmy O. Gilmore, 37 ECAB 257 (1985); Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224 (1979). 

44 M.C., Docket No. 14-21 (issued March 11, 2014); M.H., Docket No. 13-2051 (issued February 21, 2014). 

45 See Johnson v. Robinson, 415 U.S. 361 (1974) and cases cited therein. 

46 See Robert F. Stone, 57 ECAB 292 (2005); Diana L. Smith, 56 ECAB 524 (2005); Vittorio Pittelli, 49 ECAB 

181 (1997). 

47 See Andrew Fullman, 57 ECAB 574 (2006). 
18

appellant’s claim was denied because she did not provide any medical evidence to establish that 

she suffered a right hip injury causally related to the accepted June 26, 1997 employment 

incident. This argument does not show that OWCP abused its discretion by refusing to reopen 

appellant’s case for further consideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a).48

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish that her right 

hip osteoarthritis was caused by the June 26, 1997 employment incident. The Board also finds 

that OWCP properly denied her request for reconsideration without a merit review. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

decisions dated July 16 and January 24, 2014 are affirmed.49 

Issued: December 3, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 48 G.B., Docket No. 13-1260 (issued December 2, 2013). 

49 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge, participated in the original decision but was no longer a member of the 

Board effective November 16, 2015.