United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.J., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Dallas, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1576 

Issued: October 21, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Tim Egbuchunam, for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 16, 2015 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from a 

June 26, 2015 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a neck or shoulder 

injury causally related to her federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On November 28, 2014 appellant, then a 50-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) and claim for compensation alleging that she sustained pressure in 

her neck, bilateral shoulder pain, and tingling and numbness in her wrists as a result of her 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

federal employment. On the claim form she indicated that she first became aware of the 

condition on January 14, 2014. Appellant’s supervisor noted on the claim form that appellant 

stopped work on January 17, 2014. By letter dated December 9, 2014, OWCP requested that 

appellant submit additional evidence to support her claim. 

Appellant submitted a supplemental statement dated November 13, 2014, relating that 

she had worked for approximately 27 years as a letter carrier. She described her job duties, 

including casing mail, loading, unloading, and delivering mail. According to appellant, her 

cumulative job duties, constant turning, and casing mail with both hands contributed to her 

injuries. 

With respect to medical evidence, appellant submitted a report dated November 14, 2014 

from Dr. Charles Willis, a Board-certified anesthesiologist. Dr. Willis reported that appellant 

was seen for pain in the neck and shoulders. He noted that she had worked for 27 years, 

sustained an injury on January 14, 2014, and had been off work since January 17, 2014 “related 

to her alternate low back DOL [Department of Labor] work injury.”2

 Dr. Willis also reported in 

his history that appellant had a February 12, 2007 injury to her knee, hip, low back, and right leg, 

and he reported that radiographs, nerve study, and a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan had 

been performed. He did not provide a date or discuss the results of diagnostic testing. Dr. Willis 

provided results on examination and diagnosed cervical sprain, bilateral rotator cuff syndrome, 

and bilateral cervical radiculopathy. He further reported that appellant’s injury “occurred during 

normal performance of work duties while performing repetitive lifting, carrying, pushing, 

pulling, and reaching activities, lifting up to 70+ pounds of parcels and boxes of mail directly 

causing excessive strain to the bilateral shoulder joints, cervical spine and nerves directly causing 

cervical sprain, cervical radiculopathy, and rotator cuff syndrome.” 

Appellant also submitted form reports dated November 14 and December 2, 2014. The 

November 14, 2014 report was signed by a physician assistant. The December 2, 2014 report 

does not contain a legible identifying signature. On January 20, 2015 OWCP received a cervical 

MRI scan report dated December 4, 2014 from Dr. Steven Steinbaum, a radiologist. 

Dr. Steinbaum noted disc protrusions at C3 through C6. 

By decision dated January 26, 2015, OWCP denied the claim for compensation. It found 

the medical evidence was insufficient to establish the claim. OWCP indicated that appellant had 

been working light duty since the February 12, 2007 employment injury, and Dr. Willis had 

failed to provide a complete medical history. 

On March 4, 2015 appellant, through her representative, requested reconsideration. He 

stated that date of injury was January 14, 2014. The representative argued that appellant was 

working full duty at the time of the injury. Appellant resubmitted the November 14, 2014 report 

from Dr. Willis along with a functional capacity evaluation dated January 14, 2015.3

 2

 Appellant filed a claim for injury on February 12, 2007 to her right leg and thigh area OWCP claim number 

xxxxxx389. That claim was accepted for sprains to the right hip, thigh, knee and leg, as well as a lumbosacral 

sprain. Appellant filed a CA-7 claim for compensation for the accepted conditions commencing January 18, 2014. 

3

 The report stated the examiner was a Carla Davis. No signature or other information was provided. 
3

By decision dated June 26, 2015, OWCP reviewed the case on its merits and denied 

modification. It found the medical evidence was insufficient to warrant modification.4

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

A claimant seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing the essential 

elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, 

including that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that any specific 

condition or disability claimed is causally related to the employment injury.5

 

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty, a claimant must 

submit: (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 diagnosed condition is causally related to the 

employment factors identified by the claimant.6 

Causal relationship is a medical question that can generally be resolved only by 

rationalized medical opinion evidence.7 A physician’s opinion on the issue of whether there is a 

causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment 

factors must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant.8 

Additionally, in order to be considered rationalized, the opinion must be expressed in terms of a 

reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale, explaining 

the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s specific 

employment factors.9

 

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, appellant has alleged that she sustained neck and shoulder injuries 

related to her job duties as a letter carrier for over 27 years. The job duties and activities 

reported by her included repetitive movements while casing mail, lifting of mail, and turning. 

OWCP accepted that appellant engaged in activity related to casing and delivering of mail. As 

to medical evidence, the Board finds that she has not submitted the medical evidence necessary 

to establish that she sustained neck and shoulder injuries resulting from her employment duties. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted the November 14, 2014 report from 

Dr. Willis. The Board finds that this report is of diminished probative value to the issue 

 4

 OWCP again reviewed the November 14, 2014 report from Dr. Willis. 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996). 

6 Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994). 

7 See Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996). 

8 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989). 

9 Id. 
4

presented. Dr. Willis does not provide a complete factual and medical background. He notes 

that appellant worked for 27 years at the employing establishment, but then states that the injury 

occurred on January 14, 2014. Dr. Willis provides no indication as to what specifically 

happened on January 14, 2014. There is no medical evidence of record regarding treatment on or 

around January 14, 2014, nor is there an explanation as to why this is considered a date of injury. 

In addition, Dr. Willis does not demonstrate an understanding of appellant’s specific work 

history. He acknowledged that appellant had a February 12, 2007 injury, but OWCP indicated 

that appellant had worked light duty following the injury and Dr. Willis does not discuss 

appellant’s work duties since 2007. Furthermore, Dr. Willis notes that there were diagnostic 

tests that included MRI scans, x-rays, and nerve studies, without providing further explanation or 

discussing the results. The only diagnostic study of record is a cervical MRI scan dated 

December 4, 2014, completed after the report from Dr. Willis. 

A probative medical report must not only contain a complete background, but must also 

provide an opinion on causal relationship that is supported by medical rationale. Dr. Willis 

provides three diagnoses: cervical strain; cervical radiculopathy; and bilateral rotator cuff 

syndrome. These are three different diagnoses and Dr. Willis concluded without explanation that 

all diagnoses are related to repetitive work activity that placed excessive strain to the shoulders 

and neck. A rationalized medical opinion is an opinion that provides clear explanation as to the 

medical basis for the opinion regarding a specific diagnosis. The general statement as to work 

activities causing strain is not a rationalized medical opinion on the issue.10 As Dr. Willis did 

not provide a rationalized medical explanation as to how appellant’s actual employment duties 

would have physiologically caused the diagnosed conditions, his opinion is of limited probative 

value. 

The Board notes that the record also contains evidence from a physician assistant and a 

functional capacity evaluation, but to be of probative value, a medical report must be from a 

physician under FECA.11 Reports from a physician assistant are of no probative medical value.12 

There is no indication that the January 14, 2015 functional capacity evaluation was prepared or 

reviewed by a physician. 

For the above reasons, the Board finds that 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. 

 10 See R.C., Docket No. 15-1012 (issued September 1, 2015) (physician must accurately describe appellant’s work 

duties and medically explain the pathophysiological process by which these duties would have caused or aggravated 

the diagnosed condition). 

11 See 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2), which provides that the term “physician” includes “surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, 

clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as 

defined by state law.” 

12 George H. Clark, 56 ECAB 162 (2004); Barbara J. Williams, 40 ECAB 649 (1989). 
5

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a neck or 

shoulder injury causally related to her federal employment. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated June 26, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: October 21, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board