United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

W.K., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Pensacola, FL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1725 

Issued: December 4, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

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 August 17, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 24, 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 met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained 

carpal tunnel syndrome of the left hand causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 12, 2015 appellant, then a 54-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed left-sided carpal tunnel syndrome as a 

result of his daily duty of casing mail. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

In an undated narrative statement, received by OWCP on January 13, 2015, appellant 

noted that he felt numbness in his hand in the morning at work, while holding mail for 1 to 1.5 

hours daily. He stated that he had scheduled an appointment with his physician and that he was 

scheduled for diagnostic testing. 

On December 15, 2014 Dr. George Dmytrenko, Board-certified in neurology, diagnosed 

appellant with left-sided carpal tunnel syndrome. He noted that this condition bothered appellant 

mostly at night, but occasionally at work. 

By letter dated January 15, 2015, OWCP advised appellant of the evidence needed to 

establish his claim. It requested that he submit additional medical evidence to substantiate that 

the diagnosis provided was caused or aggravated by factors of his federal employment. OWCP 

also requested in a letter of the same date that the employing establishment provide information 

about appellant’s working conditions. 

In a report dated December 22, 2014, Dr. Dmytrenko interpreted the results of an 

electrodiagnostic test. He stated that the electrophysiologic data indicated severe left carpal 

tunnel syndrome with ongoing denervation. Dr. Dmytrenko also noted that the right hand was 

mildly involved. 

By letter dated January 15, 2015, Dr. Dmytrenko stated that appellant had been diagnosed 

with carpal tunnel syndrome and that “[h]is work situation may have contributed to the 

problem.” 

By decision dated February 24, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation. 

It found that, although he was a federal civilian employee who had filed a timely claim, the 

medical evidence of record did not establish that his condition was caused or aggravated by his 

accepted factors of federal employment. 

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

employment injury.2

 These are the essential elements of every compensation claim regardless of 

whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.3

 

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 

 2 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278, 279 (2001); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

3 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313, 315 (1999). 
3

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 claimant has the burden of establishing by the weight of reliable, probative and 

substantial evidence that the condition for which compensation is sought is causally related to a 

specific employment incident or to specific conditions of employment.4

 An award of 

compensation may not be based on appellant’s singular belief of causal relationship. Neither the 

mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment nor the 

belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or incidents 

is sufficient to establish a causal relationship.5

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.6

 Rationalized medical 

opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a physician’s reasoned opinion on whether 

there is a causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the compensable 

employment factors. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and 

medical background of the claimant, 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.7 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.8

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant was a federal civilian employee who filed a timely claim, 

that the employment factors occurred as alleged, that a medical condition had been diagnosed, 

and that he was within the performance of duty. However, it denied his claim, finding that he 

had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish that his carpal tunnel syndrome was 

caused or aggravated by factors of his federal employment. The Board finds that appellant has 

not met his burden of proof to establish that his condition is causally related to duties of his 

federal employment. 

In a brief letter dated January 15, 2015, Dr. Dmytrenko stated that appellant had been 

diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome and that “[h]is work situation may have contributed to 

the problem.” This letter, which is the only piece of medical evidence offering an opinion on the 

 4 Roma A. Mortenson-Kindschi, 57 ECAB 418, 428 n.37 (2006); Katherine J. Friday, 47 ECAB 591, 594 (1996). 

5 P.K., Docket No. 08-2551 (issued June 2, 2009); Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215, 218 (1997). 

6 Elizabeth H. Kramm (Leonard O. Kramm), 57 ECAB 117, 123 (2005). 

7 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132, 134 (2000). 

8

 Jennifer Atkerson, 55 ECAB 317, 319 (2004); Naomi A. Lilly, 10 ECAB 560, 573 (1959). 
4

causal relationship between appellant’s condition and factors of his federal employment, was not 

sufficiently rationalized to meet appellant’s burden of proof. The opinion of a physician 

supporting causal relationship must be one of reasonable medical certainty that the condition for 

which compensation is claimed is causally related to his federal employment, and such 

relationship must be supported with affirmative evidence, explained by medical rationale, and be 

based upon a complete and accurate medical and factual background of the claimant.9 It is 

appellant’s burden to establish that his claimed carpal tunnel syndrome is causally related to 

factors of his federal employment. Dr. Dmytrenko did not state his opinion in terms of 

reasonable medical certainty. Rather, his opinion was equivocal and speculative. 

Dr. Dmytrenko stated that appellant’s condition “may” be related to factors of his federal 

employment. He did not specify which duties of appellant’s job contributed to the condition, nor 

did he provide a rationale as to why such tasks resulted in appellant’s carpal tunnel syndrome 

condition. Thus, Dr. Dmytrenko’s January 15, 2015 opinion is of diminished probative value on 

the issue of causal relationship. 

The remainder of the medical evidence from Dr. Dmytrenko does not contain an opinion 

on the causal relationship between appellant’s condition and his federal employment. Medical 

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

limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship.10 For these reasons, the Board finds 

that Dr. Dmytrenko’s reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim for left-sided carpal 

tunnel syndrome. Appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof. 

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 failed to establish that he sustained carpal tunnel 

syndrome of the left hand causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

 9 A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006). 

10 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313, 316 n.8 (1999). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 24, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: December 4, 2015 

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