United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.T., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

DEFENSE COMMISSARY AGENCY, 

MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, FL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-44 

Issued: February 27, 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 HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 8, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from the June 18, 2014 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act1 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction over the merits of this case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant sustained an injury causally related to factors of her 

federal employment as a store worker. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 On appeal, appellant submitted documents that were before OWCP at the time of its decision and other that 

were not. The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the time 

of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 18, 2013 appellant, a 49-year-old store worker, filed an occupational 

disease claim alleging that she sustained an injury to her shoulders, neck, and back as a result of 

lifting, pushing, bending, and moving side to side at work. 

Dr. Michael D. Brewer, appellant’s attending physician, Board-certified in family 

medicine, offered several notes explaining that he was treating appellant for various pains: lower 

back pain due to arthritis, neck, and shoulder, and back pain. He advised that she was 

undergoing physical therapy and would require some physical restrictions in order for her 

treatment to progress properly. 

In a decision dated June 18, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s injury claim. It accepted 

that the work events occurred as alleged, but it found that the medical evidence was not 

sufficient to establish that the work events caused a diagnosed medical condition. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

FECA provides compensation for the disability of an employee resulting from personal 

injury sustained while in the performance of duty.3 An employee seeking benefits under FECA 

has the burden of proof to establish the essential elements of his or her claim. When an 

employee claims that he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty, he or she must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she experienced a specific event, incident or 

exposure occurring at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. He or she must also establish 

that such event, incident or exposure caused an injury.4

Causal relationship is a medical issue,5 and the medical evidence generally required to 

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. The opinion of the 

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant,6 must be 

one of reasonable medical certainty,7 and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the 

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the established incident or factor 

of employment.8

ANALYSIS 

Appellant attributes her shoulder, neck, and back conditions to the physical demands of 

her job as a store worker. There is no dispute that she lifted, pushed, bent, and moved side to 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

4 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

5 Mary J. Briggs, 37 ECAB 578 (1986). 

6 William Nimitz, Jr., 30 ECAB 567, 570 (1979). 

7 Morris Scanlon, 11 ECAB 384, 385 (1960). 

8 William E. Enright, 31 ECAB 426, 430 (1980). 
3

side in the course of her employment. OWCP accepted that such events occurred as alleged. 

The question is whether these physical activities caused any injury. 

Dr. Brewer, the attending family physician, never addressed this issue. In the absence of 

a well-reasoned medical opinion addressing the critical issue of causal relationship, the Board 

finds that appellant has not met her burden to establish that her duties as a store worker caused an 

injury. The Board will therefore affirm OWCP’s June 18, 2014 decision to deny her 

occupational disease claim. 

The documents appellant resubmitted on appeal do not show a physician’s well-reasoned 

opinion on causal relationship. This is the reason OWCP denied her claim. As noted earlier, the 

Board is precluded from reviewing the new evidence for the first time on appeal.9

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 met her burden to establish that her duties as a 

store worker caused an injury. 

 9 See supra note 2. 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 18, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 27, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board