United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.W., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Carol Stream, IL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0461 

Issued: April 14, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 12, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a January 6, 

2016 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 has met her burden of proof to establish a right shoulder 

injury causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

On appeal, counsel contends that a June 30, 2015 medical report from Dr. Benjamin A. 

Goldberg, an attending Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, is sufficient to establish that 

appellant’s right shoulder injuries were caused by repetitive lifting at work. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board on several occasions. In decisions dated 

December 28, 2007,2

 October 15, 2009,3 and August 10, 2011,4 the Board affirmed OWCP’s 

denial of appellant’s occupational disease claim for a right shoulder injury and the denial of her 

request for reconsideration without conducting a merit review. The Board found that she did not 

submit sufficient medical evidence establishing a causal relationship between the accepted 

employment factors and the claimed right shoulder injury. On June 22, 20155

 the Board found 

that the evidence submitted in support of appellant’s request for reconsideration did not meet any 

of the three criteria for warranting a merit review of her claim pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3). The facts and circumstances as set forth in the Board’s prior decisions are 

incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are set forth below. 

On August 29, 2006 appellant, then a 50-year-old casual clerk, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that on July 20, 2005 she first became aware of her fullthickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon. She further alleged that on April 6, 2006 she first 

realized that her condition was caused or aggravated by her employment. 

By letter dated June 30, 2015 and received on July 1, 2015, following issuance of the 

Board’s June 22, 2015 decision, appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of 

OWCP’s July 1, 2014 decision denying her occupational disease claim for a right shoulder 

injury. 

In a June 30, 2015 report, Dr. Goldberg reviewed appellant’s medical records, statements 

from her coworkers, and a document regarding dumping a hamper. Appellant described to 

Dr. Goldberg her work duties which, included working side by side with regulars on a belt that 

was loaded up with trays of mail, parcels, and books. She loaded and unloaded trays into 

containers and threw some of them into hampers and worked on skids. Appellant related that 

this could be very stressful because she used the same dominant arm 8 hours a day and 

sometimes 12 hours during overtime. There was no time for warm-ups, cooldown, or rest. 

Appellant came into work and swung into action throwing heavy bundles which could be very 

irritating and painful. Her pain intensified while performing mandatory overtime work. 

Appellant had neck and shoulder pain while loading and unloading 70-pound sacks filled with 

books and heavy bundles of magazine wrappings. Her arms were in a forward flexion motion 

after lifting 70-pound bags off a belt and carrying them to a cage and dumping them. Appellant 

spent an entire eight-hour day doing this with two 15-minute breaks and one 30-minute lunch 

break. She noted that a moving dolly weighing 400 pounds was filled up with 30 tubs weighing 

35 pounds each and stacked up to the top. Appellant pulled, lifted, and pushed up to 1,100 

pounds. She had to stop keying and turn, twist, and aim to throw off heavy bundles of books and 

magazines due to a staff shortage. Appellant frequently performed overhead throwing, stacking, 

 2

 Docket No. 07-1968 (issued December 28, 2007). 

3

 Docket No. 09-801 (issued October 15, 2009). 

4

 Docket No. 11-271 (issued August 10, 2011). 

5

 Docket No. 15-0748 (issued June 22, 2015). 
3

and loading at six-foot cages while she was five feet four inches tall. Dr. Goldberg noted that 

there was no dispute regarding OWCP’s acceptance of appellant’s work duties, which included 

repeatedly lifting tubs weighing 35 pounds and mailbags weighing up to 70 pounds and pushing 

and pulling dollies and cages weighing several hundred pounds. 

Dr. Goldberg opined that appellant’s work activities, specifically repetitive lifting 

between 35 and 70 pounds above her head, caused, accelerated, and precipitated her torn right 

rotator cuff and torn labral and biceps tears that eventually required surgery. He explained that 

performing repeated, forceful exertions across the front of the body increased the risk of injury to 

her wrist, hand, shoulder, and upper back. Appellant’s torn tendons in her right arm were the 

result of a wearing down of tendons caused by repetitive stress from repetitive lifting of bundles 

of mail, books, and magazines, pushing heavy dollies and cages, and lifting heavy bags of mail 

off conveyor belts. Repetitive lifting caused repetitive tearing of the tendons and muscles which 

caused both to weaken to the point that her rotator cuff, biceps, and labral tendons tore. 

Dr. Goldberg noted that heavy lifting stressed the muscles and tendons. As muscles contracted, 

tendons were subjected to mechanical loading and viscoelastic deformation. With increased 

tension, they became stiffer in response to loads. If the load on the tendons exceeded the tensile 

limits of the tissue, permanent changes occurred, such as tears. If recovery time between 

contractions was too short, tendon damage resulted along with permanent changes that decreased 

the ultimate strength of the tendons. Dr. Goldberg found that repetitively lifting 35 to 70 pounds, 

as appellant did, was sufficient to cause such small tears. He advised that these small tears 

accumulated throughout her employment, decreasing the ultimate strength of her tendon which 

led to more tearing as she performed heavy lifting activities on a daily basis. Dr. Goldberg 

indicated that the existence of these tears was confirmed by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 

scan and his April 20, 2010 right shoulder arthroscopy and subacromial decompression 

consisting of a subacromial bursectomy, biceps tenodesis, and rotator cuff tendon repair. During 

surgery, a diagnostic arthroscopy confirmed the existence of a full-thickness rotator cuff tendon 

tear and fraying of the entire long head of the biceps tendon within the range of the 

tenosynovium and subacromial bursitis. Dr. Goldberg concluded that in young patients, a 

degenerative etiology of the tear was less common than a traumatic etiology from overuse of 

tendons, which was the most likely cause of appellant’s rotator cuff tears and biceps pathology. 

In a December 22, 2015 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s June 30, 2015 request for 

reconsideration as it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. 

By letters dated December 28 and 29, 2015, appellant, through counsel, again requested 

reconsideration. Counsel contended that appellant’s July 1, 2015 request for reconsideration of 

OWCP’s July 1, 2014 decision was timely filed. 

In a January 6, 2016 decision, OWCP denied modification of the July 1, 2014 decision. 

It found that Dr. Goldberg’s June 30, 2015 opinion was speculative in nature and not rationalized 

and based on a complete and accurate factual and medical history of injury. OWCP stated that 

he did not explain how appellant’s right shoulder condition was due to the claimed employment 

factors. 
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

employment injury.6 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.7

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 medical evidence required to establish a causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion 

evidence. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background of the employee, must be one of reasonable certainty, and must be supported by 

medial rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and 

the specific employment factors identified by the employee.8

 Neither the fact that appellant’s 

condition became apparent during a period of employment nor, her belief that the condition was 

caused by her employment is sufficient to establish a causal relationship.9

ANALYSIS 

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

The Board has previously found that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to 

establish a right shoulder injury causally related to her accepted employment factors. Appellant 

requested reconsideration before OWCP and submitted a June 30, 2015 report from 

Dr. Goldberg, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon and her attending physician. 

In his June 30, 2015 report, Dr. Goldberg noted that appellant described her work duties, 

which included loading and unloading trays of mail, parcels, books, and bundles of magazine 

wrappings weighing 70 pounds from a belt and dumping them into containers, hampers, and 

cages, working on skids, and pulling, lifting, and pushing up to 1,100 pounds, and keying while 

using her dominant arm 8 hours a day and 12 hours during overtime. Appellant stated that 

 6 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

7 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

8 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, id. at 351-52.

9 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383, 389 (1994). 
5

throwing heavy bundles was very irritating and painful, and loading and unloading 70-pound 

sacks caused her neck and shoulder pain. She noted that she had two 15-minute breaks and one 

30-minute lunch break. Dr. Goldberg opined that appellant’s torn right rotator cuff and torn 

labral and biceps tears, which eventually required surgery, were caused, accelerated, and 

precipitated by her accepted work duties, specifically, repetitive lifting between 35 and 70 

pounds above her head. He further opined that a degenerative etiology of the tear was less 

common than a traumatic etiology from overuse of tendons, which was the most likely cause of 

her rotator cuff tears and biceps pathology. Dr. Goldberg explained that repetitive lifting caused 

stress on muscles and tendons and made them stiffer in response to loads, resulting in tears. The 

Board finds that this report, while not completely rationalized, is consistent in indicating that 

appellant sustained an employment-related right shoulder 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. It has the obligation to see that justice 

is done.10 Although Dr. Goldberg’s report is not sufficiently rationalized to meet appellant’s 

burden of proof to establish that she sustained a right shoulder injury causally related to the 

established factors of her federal employment, his report is uncontroverted in the record and 

raises an inference of causal relationship sufficient to require further development of the case 

record by OWCP.11

The Board will remand the case to OWCP for referral to an appropriate medical specialist 

to determine the extent of any injury or aggravation of any preexisting conditions as a result of 

the established employment factors. Following this, and any other further development as 

deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue an appropriate merit decision on appellant’s claim. 

On appeal, counsel for appellant contends that Dr. Goldberg’s June 30, 2015 report is 

sufficient to establish that appellant’s right shoulder injuries were caused by repetitive lifting at 

work. However, the Board has found that the case is not in posture for decision. The case will 

be remanded for further development. 

CONCLUSION 

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

 10 Lourdes Davila, 45 ECAB 139 (1993).

11 See John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); Horace Langhorne, 29 ECAB 820 (1978). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 6, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside, and the case remanded for additional 

development consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: April 14, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board