United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.C., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Milwaukee, WI, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0121 

Issued: April 21, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 27, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

September 12, 2016 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2

 (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 a right wrist condition 

causally related to the accepted August 10, 2015 employment incident. 

 1

 In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An 

attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject 

to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation. 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 12, 2015 appellant, then a 54-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 10, 2015, he injured his right wrist as a result of 

climbing onto a flatbed tow truck in order to retrieve mail from a broken-down mail delivery 

vehicle. He noted that he did not slip or fall. A supervisor noted that no medical reports had 

been received to support the claim and denied knowledge of the facts surrounding appellant’s 

claimed injury. 

By letter dated September 1, 2015, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence of record 

was insufficient to support his claim. It noted that he had not submitted any medical evidence in 

support of his claim. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit additional evidence. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a “return to work” note, signed by a nurse 

practitioner. He also submitted several reports of physical limitations from Dr. Curtis Crimmins, 

a Board-certified hand surgeon, however, these reports did not contain diagnoses. 

By decision dated October 5, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation. It 

found that the incident occurred as alleged, but he failed to submit medical evidence containing a 

medical diagnosis from a qualified physician in connection with the events of August 10, 2015. 

On October 13, 2015 OWCP received a number of reports from Dr. Crimmins. 

In a report dated August 12, 2015, Dr. Crimmins stated an impression of acute onset right 

wrist pain with heavy load and extension. He gave appellant a splint and recommended blood 

work to determine whether there was an inflammatory component to his condition. 

On August 20, 2015 Dr. Crimmins reported that appellant’s blood test was normal. He 

noted that he recommended appellant undergo a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. 

Dr. Crimmins thereafter related that it appeared appellant had a combination of both underlying 

scaphotrapezotrapezoidal (STT) joint arthrosis and flexor carpi radialis (FCR) tendinitis. 

In a report dated August 27, 2015, Dr. Crimmins reviewed a right wrist MRI scan of 

appellant and noted that it revealed severe arthrosis of the STT joint with edema in the scaphoid 

trapezium and trapezoid bones. He also explained that he recommended that appellant proceed 

with STT joint arthrodesis. 

On September 24, 2015 Dr. Crimmins noted that appellant had returned for a follow up 

for his wrist fusion, noting that a cast had been fabricated for strict immobilization. 

In a statement dated October 25, 2015, appellant requested an oral hearing before an 

OWCP hearing representative. He noted that, at the time of his injury, a diagnosis was not 

readily available due to immense swelling and that the diagnosis had only been made after his 

MRI scan. 

The hearing was held on June 29, 2016. At the hearing, the hearing representative stated 

that Dr. Crimmins’ reports did not contain a sufficient explanation of causation or aggravation of 

appellant’s condition. Appellant noted that the surgery on his wrist had worsened his condition 
3

because two of the three inserted screws were loose. The hearing representative kept the record 

open for 30 days for the submission of additional evidence. 

On July 7, 2016 Dr. Crimmins noted that “[Appellant] and I had a lengthy discussion 

regarding the onset of his wrist pain. He was climbing up onto a flatbed tow truck when he 

hyperextended his wrist and had an onset of pain and swelling. It did not resolve over time. 

[Appellant] eventually underwent arthrodesis of his STT joint. [He] does remark that he was 

completely asymptomatic prior to climbing up onto the flatbed truck. It does appear that 

[appellant’s] reported work injury significantly aggravated arthrosis of his STT joint. This 

opinion is given to a reasonable degree of medical probability.” 

By decision dated September 12, 2016, the hearing representative denied appellant’s 

claim finding that Dr. Crimmins’ medical opinion on causation was not sufficiently rationalized. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3

 has the burden of proof to establish 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 timely filed within the 

applicable time limitation period of FECA, that an injury4 was sustained in the performance of 

duty as alleged, and that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed 

is causally related to the employment injury.5

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it must first be determined whether a “fact of injury” has been established. 

A fact of injury determination is based on two elements. First, the employee must submit 

sufficient evidence to establish that he actually experienced the employment incident at the time, 

place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit sufficient evidence, 

generally only in the form of medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused 

a personal injury. An employee may establish that the employment incident occurred as alleged, 

but fail to show that his condition relates to the employment incident.6

The claimant has the burden of proof to establish 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.7

 Causal relationship is a 

 3 Supra note 2. 

4

 OWCP’s regulations define a traumatic injury as a condition of the body caused by a specific event or incident, 

or series of events of incidents, within a single workday or shift. Such condition must be caused by external force, 

including stress or strain, which is identifiable as to time and place of occurrence and member or function of the 

body affected. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 

5 T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393 (2008); see Steven S. Saleh, 55 ECAB 169, 171-72 (2003); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

6 See Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997); John J. Carlone 41 ECAB 354, 356-57 (1989). 

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

medical issue and the medical evidence generally required to establish causal relationship is 

rationalized medical opinion evidence.8

 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 compensable employment factors.9

 

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.10

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that on August 10, 2015, he sustained a wrist injury as a result of 

climbing onto a tow truck, to retrieve mail from a broken-down postal vehicle. OWCP accepted 

that the incident occurred as alleged. 

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted medical evidence sufficient to establish 

that the August 10, 2015 incident caused or aggravated his diagnosed severe arthrosis of the STT 

joint with edema in the scaphoid trapezium and trapezoid bones and FCR tendinitis. 

On July 7, 2016 Dr. Crimmins noted that appellant was climbing up onto a flatbed tow 

truck when he hyperextended his wrist and had an onset of pain and swelling, noting that it did 

not resolve over time and appellant eventually underwent arthrodesis of his STT joint. He 

explained, “[Appellant] does remark that he was completely asymptomatic prior to climbing up 

onto the flatbed truck. It does appear that his reported work injury significantly aggravated 

arthrosis of his STT joint. This opinion is given to a reasonable degree of medical probability.” 

The Board has held that a medical opinion on the issue of causation or aggravation of a 

condition that is based solely on the observation that a claimant was asymptomatic before the 

injury is insufficient, by itself, to establish a causal relationship between the injury and the workrelated event.11 Dr. Crimmins’ opinion lacks a physiologic explanation of how the August 10, 

2015 incident caused or aggravated appellant’s claimed conditions. As he did not provide a 

reasoned explanation of how the specific employment incident of August 10, 2015 caused or 

aggravated appellant’s right wrist condition, his opinion is of limited probative value.12

An award of compensation may not be based on appellant’s belief of causal relationship. 

Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment 

 8 Y.J., Docket No. 08-1167 (issued October 7, 2008); A.D., 58 ECAB 149, 155-56 (2006); D’Wayne Avila, 57 

ECAB 642, 649 (2006). 

9 J.J., Docket No. 09-0027 (issued February 10, 2009); Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379, 384 (2006). 

10 I.J., 59 ECAB 408, 415 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989). 

11 See Cleopatra McDougal-Saddler, 47 ECAB 480 (1996). 

12 See S.M., Docket No. 16-0593 (issued February 24, 2017). 
5

nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or 

incidents is sufficient to establish a causal relationship.13

Appellant did not submit a clear and well-rationalized opinion from a physician causally 

relating his right wrist condition to the incident of August 10, 2015. As such, the Board finds 

that he failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish that his right wrist condition was causally 

related to the accepted August 10, 2015 employment incident. 

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 right 

wrist condition was causally related to the accepted August 10, 2015 employment incident. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated September 12, 2016 is affirmed. 

Issued: April 21, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

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