United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

E.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, San Diego, CA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1055 

Issued: September 12, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 27, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 24, 2013 decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying his occupational disease 

claim. 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 established that he sustained a bilateral shoulder condition 

causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 11, 2013 appellant, then a 58-year-old distribution clerk, filed an 

occupational disease claim alleging that on January 1, 2012 he first realized that the torn 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

cartilage in both shoulders was causally related to his repetitive employment duties. The 

employing establishment noted that he had retired as of January 31, 2013. 

By letter dated October 24, 2013, OWCP informed appellant of the medical and factual 

evidence required to support his claim. He was provided 30 days to submit the requested 

information. 

Appellant submitted a November 11, 2013 report from Dr. Dana R. Johnson, an 

examining Board-certified family practitioner, who diagnosed bilateral acromioclavicular joint 

arthritis and bilateral impingement syndrome. Dr. Johnson reported the onset of appellant’s 

condition began on January 1, 2012 and that he first sought treatment on November 8, 2013 for 

this condition. Appellant related that his job involved repetitive twisting, lifting, sorting and 

pushing. Dr. Johnson performed a physical examination and reviewed magnetic resonance 

imaging (MRI) scans of both shoulders dated July 25, 2013. The studies revealed supraspinatus 

tendiopathy and acromioclavicular arthritis in both shoulders with a focal anterior supraspinatus 

full thickness tear in the right shoulder. Dr. Johnson stated that based on appellant’s subjective 

complaints and evaluation of symptoms it was within reasonable medical probability to conclude 

that appellant’s condition was nonindustrial and due to the natural aging progression. 

By decision dated December 24, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that the 

medical evidence was insufficient to establish that his bilateral shoulder condition was causally 

related to his employment duties.2

 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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 and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the 

employment injury.4 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.5

 

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in a claim for 

occupational disease, an employee must submit: (1) a factual statement identifying employment 

factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or 

condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition 

 2

 The Board notes that, following the December 24, 2013 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 

However, the Board may only review. The evidence that was in the record at the time OWCP issued its final 

decision. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c)(1); M.B., Docket No. 09-176 (issued September 23, 2009); J.T., 59 ECAB 293 

(2008); G.G., 58 ECAB 389 (2007); Donald R. Gervasi, 57 ECAB 281 (2005); Rosemary A. Kayes, 54 ECAB 

373 (2003). 

3

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

4 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006). 

5 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 
3

for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed 

condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the employee.6 

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.7

 Rationalized medical 

opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on 

whether there is a causal relationship between the employee’s diagnosed condition and the 

compensable employment factors.8

 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete 

factual and medical background of the employee, 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 employee.9

 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that he developed a bilateral shoulder condition as a result of his 

repetitive duties as a distribution clerk. OWCP accepted that he had repetitive work duties and 

been diagnosed with bilateral acromioclavicular joint arthritis and bilateral impingement 

syndrome. It denied appellant’s claim finding that he submitted insufficient medical evidence to 

establish that his bilateral shoulder condition was causally related to factors of his employment. 

The Board finds that he provided insufficient medical evidence to establish that his bilateral 

shoulder condition resulted from his employment duties. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. Johnson who related that he reported an onset of his 

condition on January 1, 2012, but did not seek medical treatment until November 8, 2013. 

Dr. Johnson performed a physical examination and reviewed MRI scans of both shoulders. As to 

the cause of appellant’s bilateral shoulder condition, Dr. Johnson opined that the condition was 

not due to his employment, but was the result of the natural aging process with progression of 

degenerative changes. 

The issue of causal relationship is a medical question that must be established by 

probative medical opinion from a physician.10 The only medical report of record is from 

Dr. Johnson, who found appellant’s condition was not employment related. Appellant failed to 

submit any medical report attributing his condition to his federal employment. As the record 

does not contain probative medical opinion supporting causal relationship, the Board finds that 

appellant did not meet his burden of proof. 

 6 D.U., Docket No. 10-144 (issued July 27, 2010); R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008); Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238 

(2005); Donald W. Wenzel, 56 ECAB 390 (2005). 

7 Y.J., Docket No. 08-1167 (issued October 7, 2008); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); D’Wayne Avila, 57 ECAB 

642 (2006). 

8 J.J., Docket No. 09-27 (issued February 10, 2009); Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379 (2006). 

9 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989). 

10 W.W., Docket No. 09-1619 (issued June 2, 2010); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005). 
4

OWCP advised appellant by letter dated October 24, 2013 of the evidence needed to 

establish his claim. However, appellant did not submit such evidence. 

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 that his 

bilateral shoulder condition was causally related to factors of his employment. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated December 24, 2013 is affirmed. 

Issued: September 12, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board