United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Jersey City, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-356 

Issued: May 18, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

James D. Muirhead, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 24, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal of the July 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an occupational 

disease affecting his right foot in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 10, 2012 appellant, then a 45-year-old city carrier, filed a Form CA-2, 

occupational disease claim, alleging that he developed osteoarthritis and arthralgia of the foot as 

 

 1 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

a result of prolonged standing, walking, and stair climbing required in his job as a carrier. He 

did not stop work. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. Francis Rossi, a podiatrist, on August 6, 2012 for painful 

great toe worsening with walking. He noted examination findings of severe pain of the first 

metatarsal phalangeal joint with restricted range of motion and inflammation around the joint. 

Dr. Rossi noted x-rays revealed osteoarthritis of the first metatarsal phalangeal joint of the right 

foot and diagnosed osteoarthritis of the first metatarsal phalangeal joint of the right foot/hallux 

rigidus. He noted appellant’s condition was aggravated by employment because of repetitive 

weight bearing and motion through the first metatarsal phalangeal joint while walking long 

distances and climbing stairs. In a certificate of health care provider dated August 6, 2012, 

Dr. Rossi noted appellant’s condition commenced on May 10, 2012 and that he was unable to 

walk for prolonged periods due to his condition. He diagnosed osteoarthritis of the first 

metatarsal phalangeal joint or hallux rigidus of the right foot causing inflammation of the joint. 

Dr. Rossi recommended surgery and advised that appellant would not be able to work from 

September 15 to November 15, 2012. 

In a letter of contravention dated August 23, 2012, the employing establishment 

challenged appellant’s claim noting that the medical evidence did not provide a complete history 

and that he had not reported all activities that may have played a role in the development of his 

condition. 

On September 20, 2012 OWCP advised appellant of the type of evidence needed to 

establish his claim. It particularly requested that he submit a physician’s reasoned opinion 

addressing the relationship of his claimed condition and specific work factors. 

In a November 19, 2012 decision, OWCP denied the claim as the medical evidence was 

insufficient to establish that the claimed condition was causally related to his employment. 

On December 17, 2012 appellant requested reconsideration. He submitted a 

December 17, 2012 report from Dr. Rossi who offered clarification of the causal relationship 

between osteoarthritis of the first metatarsal phalangeal joint and walking 10 miles a day. 

Dr. Rossi noted that osteoarthritis was known as wear and tear arthritis as stress from excessive 

daily activities has a direct effect on the development or exacerbation of this condition. He noted 

that there was a direct effect between appellant’s work and his medical condition of hallux 

rigidus/osteoarthritis of the first metatarsal phalangeal joint of the right foot. 

In a decision dated February 28, 2013, OWCP denied modification of the decision dated 

November 19, 2012. 

On September 17, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration. He submitted reports from 

Dr. Rossi dated August 6 and December 17, 2012, previously of record. 

In a decision dated December 11, 2013, OWCP denied modification of the decision dated 

February 28, 2013. 

On April 9 and June 26, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration. He submitted an 

undated report from Dr. Rossi, who noted that appellant worked as a letter carrier for over 20 
3

years walking approximately 10 miles daily. Dr. Rossi noted that over time appellant developed 

painful debilitating osteoarthritis of the first metatarsal phalangeal joint commonly referred to as 

hallux/rigidus/limitus which required surgery. He noted that the daily stress through the foot 

joints with this amount of walking is known to cause and or exacerbate arthritis in the big toe 

joint. Further medical literature points to repetitive trauma from walking as the cause of hallux 

rigidus or arthritis in the big toe joint. 

In a decision dated July 18, 2014, OWCP denied modification of the December 11, 2013 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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. Appellant must also establish that such event, incident or exposure caused an 

injury.2

 

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) 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 causal relationship is generally rationalized 

medical opinion evidence. Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which 

includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship 

between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated 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.3

ANALYSIS 

It is not disputed that appellant’s work duties as a city carrier included prolonged 

standing, walking, and stair climbing. On September 20, 2012 OWCP advised him of the type of 

 2 See Walter D. Morehead, 31 ECAB 188, 194 (1979) (occupational disease or illness); Max Haber, 19 ECAB 

243, 247 (1967) (traumatic injury). See generally John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143 (1989). 

3 Solomon Polen, 51 ECAB 341 (2000). 
4

medical evidence needed to establish his claim. However, appellant has not submitted sufficient 

medical evidence to establish that any of these conditions are causally related to specific 

employment factors or conditions. 

Appellant submitted an August 6, 2012 report from Dr. Rossi, who diagnosed 

osteoarthritis of the first metatarsal phalangeal joint of the right foot/hallux rigidus. Dr. Rossi 

noted that the condition was aggravated by employment because of repetitive weight bearing and 

motion through the first metatarsal phalangeal joint while walking long distances and climbing 

stairs. On December 17, 2012 he offered clarification of his opinion on causal relationship 

between osteoarthritis and walking 10 miles a day. Dr. Rossi noted that osteoarthritis was 

known as wear and tear arthritis as stress from excessive daily activities had a direct effect on the 

development or exacerbation of this condition. He noted that there was a direct effect between 

appellant’s work and his medical condition of hallux rigidus/osteoarthritis of the first metatarsal 

phalangeal joint of the right foot. Similarly, in an undated report, Dr. Rossi noted that appellant 

worked as a letter carrier for over 20 years walking about 10 miles daily. He stated that over 

time appellant developed painful debilitating osteoarthritis of the first metatarsal phalangeal joint 

commonly referred to as hallux/rigidus/limitus which required surgery. Dr. Rossi noted the daily 

stress through the foot joints with this amount of walking is known to cause and or exacerbate 

arthritis in the big toe joint. He noted medical literature pointed to repetitive trauma from 

walking as a cause of hallux rigidus or arthritis in the big toe joint. The Board finds that, 

although Dr. Rossi supported causal relationship, he did not provide medical rationale explaining 

the basis of the medical opinion regarding the causal relationship between appellant’s 

osteoarthritis of the first metatarsal phalangeal joint and the factors of employment.4

 For 

example, Dr. Rossi did not explain the process by which walking for prolonged distances and 

periods of time would cause the diagnosed condition and why such condition would not be due 

to any nonwork factors such as age-related degenerative changes. Therefore, these reports are 

insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

In a certificate of health care provider dated August 6, 2012, Dr. Rossi noted appellant’s 

condition commenced on May 10, 2012. He diagnosed osteoarthritis of the first metatarsal 

phalangeal joint or hallux rigidus of the right foot causing inflammation of the joint and noted 

appellant was unable to walk for prolonged periods due to his condition. Dr. Rossi 

recommended surgical intervention. However, these notes do not provide a history of injury5

 or 

offer an opinion on how appellant’s employment could have caused or aggravated his condition.6

 

The remainder of the medical evidence, including reports of diagnostic testing are 

insufficient to establish the claim as they fail to provide an opinion on the causal relationship 

between appellant’s job and his diagnosed conditions. 

 4

 Franklin D. Haislah, 52 ECAB 457 (2001) (medical reports not containing rationale on causal relationship are 

entitled to little probative value); Jimmie H. Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001). 

5 See Frank Luis Rembisz, 52 ECAB 147 (2000) (medical opinions based on an incomplete history). 

6 A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006) (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). 
5

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 did not meet his burden of proof to establish an 

occupational disease in the performance of duty. 

ORDER 

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 18, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board