United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

I.B., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CHICAGO 

NETWORK DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Forest 

Park, IL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1095 

Issued: August 1, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 28, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 19, 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 established any additional conditions or any 

employment-related disability from October 26, 2015 to January 8, 2016 causally related to a 

September 10, 2015 employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 15, 2015 appellant, then a 51-year-old parcel post machine operator, filed 

a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she sustained a left shoulder injury in the 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

performance of duty on September 10, 2015. The cause of the injury was described as “broken 

slides.” Appellant submitted a note describing the incident as picking up heavy mail from the 

floor, then trying to throw it into an all-purpose container with her left arm. The record indicates 

that she stopped work and filed claims for wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) commencing 

October 26, 2015 to January 8, 2016. 

By report dated September 10, 2015, Dr. Sameer Panjwani, Board-certified in family 

medicine, provided a history that appellant had developed left shoulder pain after picking up and 

throwing mail. He noted that appellant had a history of neck problems with C2-4 surgery. 

Dr. Panjwani provided results on examination and diagnosed left shoulder conditions of pain, 

rotator cuff tendinitis, sprain/strain, and impingement. He reported that appellant could work 

with restrictions that included 10 pounds lifting and no overhead work. 

On September 14, 2015 appellant was treated by Dr. Adolphus Anekwe, a Boardcertified internist, for a “left shoulder injury at work.” Dr. Anekwe provided results on 

examination and the record indicates a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan was ordered. By 

report dated September 30, 2015, he reported that appellant was being evaluated for a possible 

rotator cuff tear and was awaiting authorization for an MRI scan. 

In a report dated October 8, 2015, Dr. Anekwe wrote that appellant was unable to work 

from September 10 to October 28, 2015. He diagnosed left rotator cuff tear, left shoulder 

sprain/strain, and shoulder injury. On October 26, 2015 Dr. Anekwe diagnosed tendinopathy of 

the left rotator cuff, cervical radiculopathy, cervicalgia, and left subscapular muscle strain. He 

indicated that appellant would be released to work with restrictions as of November 9, 2015. 

Dr. Anekwe submitted a report dated November 11, 2015 opining that appellant had 

strained her left subcapularis muscle due to a work accident on September 10, 2015. He 

indicated that appellant was given a steroid injection on October 26, 2015 “due to the strain of 

the subcapularis muscle that caused a rotator cuff syndrome complex.” Dr. Anekwe also opined 

that appellant “suffers with cervical radiculopathy due to the accident of [September 10, 2015]. 

On November 25, 2015 appellant submitted a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) from 

October 26 to November 13, 2015. She subsequently submitted Form CA-7’s claiming 

compensation to January 8, 2016. In a report dated December 3, 2015, Dr. Anekwe again 

diagnosed tendinopathy of the left rotator cuff, cervical radiculopathy, cervicalgia, and left 

subscapularis muscle strain. 

OWCP accepted the claim on December 4, 2015 for left shoulder sprain/strain and left 

shoulder impingement. With respect to additional diagnosed conditions, including cervical 

radiculopathy, rotator cuff tear, and rotator cuff tendinitis, it found the evidence did not establish 

these conditions were causally related to the September 10, 2015 injury. OWCP also indicated 

that appellant must submit additional medical evidence with respect to disability for work. 

On January 12, 2016 appellant submitted a form report dated January 12, 2016 and 

signed by Dr. Nikhil Pandhi, an osteopath. According to the report a left shoulder rotator cuff 

tear “were the findings of Dr. Pandhi’s MRI scan. Due to the accident [September 10, 2015].” 

The report indicated that appellant was receiving physical therapy. 
3

By decision dated January 19, 2016, OWCP denied claims for wage-loss compensation 

from October 26, 2015 to January 8, 2016. It found the medical evidence did not establish any 

additional employment-related conditions, or an employment-related disability for the period 

claimed. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including that any disability or specific condition for 

which compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury.2 The term 

disability is defined as the incapacity because of an employment injury to earn the wages the 

employee was receiving at the time of the injury, i.e., a physical impairment resulting in loss of 

wage-earning capacity.3

Whether a particular injury causes an employee to be disabled for employment and the 

duration of that disability are medical issues which must be proved by a preponderance of the 

reliable, probative, and substantial medical evidence.4 Findings on examination are generally 

needed to support a physician’s opinion that an employee is disabled for work. When a 

physician’s statements regarding an employee’s ability to work consist only of repetition of the 

employee’s complaints that she hurt too much to work, without objective findings of disability 

being shown, the physician has not presented a medical opinion on the issue of disability or a 

basis for payment of compensation.5 The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for 

disability in the absence of any medical evidence directly addressing the specific dates of 

disability for which compensation is claimed. To do so would essentially allow employees to 

self-certify their disability and entitlement to compensation.6

To establish a causal relationship between the disability claimed and the employment 

injury, an employee must submit rationalized medical evidence, based on a complete factual and 

medical background, supporting such a causal relationship.7 Causal relationship is a medical 

issue and the medical evidence required to establish a causal relationship is rationalized medical 

evidence.8 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.9

 

 2 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); see e.g., Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999) (where appellant had an injury but no 

loss of wage-earning capacity). 

4 See Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001). 

5 Id. 

6 Id. 

7 Kathryn E. DeMarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005). 

8 Elizabeth Stanislaw, 49 ECAB 540 (1998). 

9 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000). 
4

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, OWCP accepted that on September 10, 2015 appellant lifted mail 

from the floor, threw it into a container, and sustained a left shoulder injury. The accepted 

conditions were left shoulder sprain/strain, and left shoulder impingement. The January 19, 2016 

decision indicated that appellant had received continuation of pay (COP) and then claimed wageloss compensation commencing October 26, 2015. With respect to the claim for compensation 

commencing October 26, 2015, the initial question is whether there were other conditions 

established as casually related to the January 19, 2016 employment injury. Once the 

employment-related conditions are established, then the determination can be made as to whether 

any disability from an employment-related condition during the period October 26, 2015 to 

January 8, 2016 was established. 

Addressing the question of additional conditions, the Board notes that the medical 

evidence of record contains several diagnoses, including left rotator cuff tear, left rotator cuff 

tendinopathy, left rotator cuff syndrome, cervical radiculopathy, and cervicalgia. As to a rotator 

cuff tear, the diagnosis was provided in an October 8, 2015 report from Dr. Anekwe. 

Dr. Anekwe did not provide any discussion of diagnostic testing results supporting the diagnosis. 

Moreover, no probative opinion was provided on the causal relationship between the rotator cuff 

tear diagnosis and the September 10, 2015 employment injury. Dr. Anekwe does not provide a 

report that discusses the actual employment incident or shows familiarity with the mechanism of 

injury. He does not provide an opinion, supported with sound medical rationale, on causal 

relationship with employment. 

Dr. Pandhi provided a brief report that referred to undated MRI scan findings of a rotator 

cuff tear. No other explanation was provided, and as to causal relationship the January 12, 2016 

report simply stated “due to accident” on September 10, 2015. The report provides no accurate 

history, findings on examination, or medical rationale to support the opinion. 

With respect to the other rotator cuff diagnoses of tendinitis, tendinopathy, or syndrome, 

the record contains no rationalized medical opinion on causal relationship with the employment 

injury. Dr. Anekwe briefly opined in his November 11, 2015 report that a subscapularis strain 

had caused a rotator cuff syndrome. He did not provide a complete factual or medical history, or 

provide medical rationale explaining how the employment injury caused a rotator cuff syndrome. 

The conditions of cervical radiculopathy and cervicalgia are similarly lacking in any 

probative medical opinion on causal relationship. Dr. Panjwani had noted that appellant had a 

history of preexisting cervical problems that included surgery. An opinion regarding a cervical 

condition must provide an accurate history and clearly explain how the September 10, 2015 

employment injury affected the neck. The brief opinion from Dr. Anekwe in the November 11, 

2015 report that cervical radiculopathy was due to the employment accident is of little probative 

value. The Board accordingly finds that the evidence does not establish any additional 

employment-related conditions. 

With respect to an employment-related disability as of October 26, 2015, there is no 

evidence establishing further employment-related disabilities during the period claimed. In an 

October 26, 2015 report, Dr. Anekwe had reported that appellant was disabled through 

November 9, 2015, without further explanation. He did not provide a rationalized medical 

opinion with respect to an employment-related disability as of October 26, 2015. As noted 
5

above, the only accepted employment-related conditions were left shoulder sprain/strain, and left 

shoulder impingement. 

It is appellant’s burden of proof to establish an additional employment-related condition 

and the period of claimed disability.10 For the reasons discussed above, the Board finds 

appellant did not meet her burden of proof in this case. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for 

reconsideration to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) 

and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established any additional conditions or an 

employment-related disability from October 26, 2015 to January 8, 2016 causally related to a 

September 10, 2015 employment injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated January 19, 2016 is affirmed. 

Issued: August 1, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, 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 

 10 See Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004).