United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

_________________________________________ 

J.B., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Moncks Corner, SC, Employer 

___________________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1466 

Issued: April 14, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record 

Appellant, pro se

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 July 7, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal of a June 3, 2016 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.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish an injury causally 

related to her accepted March 26, 2016 work incident. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 19, 2016 appellant, then a 62-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on March 26, 2016 she slipped and strained her right knee in the 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The case record provided to the Board includes evidence received after OWCP issued its June 3, 2016 decision. 

The Board is precluded from considering evidence that was not in the case record at the time OWCP rendered its 

final decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

performance of duty. She noted on the claim form “strain not applicable to middle back.” 

Regarding the cause of the injury, it was noted “slip but employee is not sure what caused it.” 

The employing establishment challenged the claim and advised that a challenge was 

forthcoming. Appellant did not initially stop work. 

In a letter dated April 25, 2016, OWCP informed appellant of the type of evidence 

needed to support her claim and requested that she submit such evidence within 30 days. 

In a May 3, 2016 statement, the employing establishment explained that appellant noted 

that she “somehow” fell on March 26, 2016 in the employee parking lot. Appellant indicated 

that she was unsure of how this occurred and filled out a letter of declination to file a CA-1 on 

March 26, 2016. However, on April 19, 2016 appellant requested a Form CA-1 and advised that 

she would like to be checked out by her doctor. The employing establishment further noted that 

appellant had been working several weeks after her stated fall with no restrictions or loss of 

work. It noted its concerns about the timing of appellant’s requested doctor’s visit considering 

that appellant had been disapproved for an upcoming weekend of annual leave and had no 

adverse reactions since her alleged fall. The employing establishment further indicated that 

appellant had yet to visit her physician. 

In a May 11, 2016 report, Dr. David P. Rogers, Board-certified in family medicine, noted 

that appellant fell on March 26, 2016 and landed on her knees while loading mail into a mail 

truck while at work. He related that she had right back and right knee pain right after the fall, 

and that both were persisting. Dr. Rogers examined appellant and diagnosed right knee 

contusion and lumbar strain. He saw appellant on May 18, 2016 and diagnosed lumbar strain, 

pain in right knee, and low back pain. Dr. Rogers placed appellant off work through May 31, 

2016 and indicated that she was unable to perform the duties required in her current position. He 

noted that appellant was required to bend and lift up to 70 pounds. 

In a May 16, 2016 narrative statement, appellant explained that on March 26, 2016 she 

was in the back parking lot and it was raining. She noted that there were puddles of water on the 

pavement as she was loading trays into the front side of her vehicle. When appellant took her 

last tray out of the buggy, she fell, lading on her hands and knees. She explained that her tray of 

mail slid across the pavement, and her coworker, L.T., came over to assist her. Appellant 

indicated that she got up and told her supervisor that she had fallen and hurt her knee and back. 

She noted that she was offered Ibuprofen, but wished to wait. Appellant also noted that L.T. 

witnessed the fall. She indicated that she left to finish her route. Appellant advised that her knee 

was still tender and had a small knot. Furthermore, her back was still hurting. Appellant 

responded “no” when asked whether she had a prior similar disability or condition and whether 

she had received benefits for a right knee injury. She responded “yes” with regard to whether 

she was on the premises of the employing establishment at the time of the injury. Appellant 

noted that it was owned by the employing establishment and they were required to park on the 

lot. 

In a May 7, 2016 narrative statement, L.T. confirmed that on March 26, 2016 she 

witnessed appellant fall while loading a tray of mail into her vehicle. She indicated that she was 

not sure what caused her to fall, but she witnessed the fall to the ground. L.T. explained that it 

was pouring down rain on that date and she assumed that appellant slipped. 
3

 By decision dated June 3, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she had 

failed to establish an injury causally related to the March 26, 2016 employment incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

A claimant seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish 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.3

To determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of 

duty, OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Generally, 

fact of injury consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one 

another. The first component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment 

incident that allegedly occurred.4 The second component is whether the employment incident 

caused a personal injury.5 An employee may establish that an injury occurred in the performance 

of duty as alleged, but fail to establish that the disability or specific condition for which 

compensation is being claimed is causally related to the injury.6

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that on March 26, 2016 she sustained an injury to her right knee and 

back when she slipped and fell to the ground in the parking lot. OWCP has accepted that the 

March 26, 2016 employment incident occurred as alleged, and that a diagnosis was provided in 

connection with the employment incident. However, appellant’s claim was denied because the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to demonstrate causal relationship between the 

accepted employment incident and the diagnosed right knee and lumbar conditions. 

The Board finds that the medical evidence of record is insufficiently rationalized to 

establish causal relationship. The record contains no reasoned explanation of how the specific 

employment incident on March 26, 2016 either caused or aggravated appellant’s diagnosed 

lumbar and right knee conditions.7

 

 3

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

4 Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

5 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). Causal relationship is a medical question that generally requires 

rationalized medical opinion evidence to resolve the issue. See Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996). A 

physician’s opinion on whether there is a causal relationship between the diagnosed condition and the implicated 

employment factor(s) must be based on a complete factual and medical background. Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 

345, 352 (1989). Additionally, the physician’s 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 factor(s). Id.

6 Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997). 

7 See George Randolph Taylor, 6 ECAB 986, 988 (1954) (where the Board found that a medical opinion not 

fortified by medical rationale is of little probative value). 
4

Appellant submitted three reports from Dr. Rogers. In a May 11, 2016 report, Dr. Rogers 

noted appellant’s history of injury, which included that she fell on March 26, 2016 and landed on 

her knees while loading mail into a mail truck. He related that she had right back and right knee 

pain right after the fall, and that both were persisting. Dr. Rogers examined appellant and 

diagnosed knee contusion and lumbar strain. However, he did not offer any opinion on causal 

relationship between either injury. Medical evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding 

the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal 

relationship.8

 Likewise, when he saw appellant for follow-up on May 18 and 31, 2016, 

Dr. Rogers failed to explain how appellant’s diagnosed knee and lumbar conditions were 

causally related to the reported March 26, 2016 fall. Consequently, his various reports are of 

limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship.9

Because the medical reports submitted by appellant do not specifically address how the 

March 26, 2016 employment-related fall either caused or aggravated her diagnosed right knee 

and lumbar conditions, they are of limited probative value and are insufficient to establish 

appellant’s entitlement to FECA benefits.10

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 her burden of proof to establish an injury 

causally related to her accepted March 26, 2016 work incident. 

 8 Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004). 

9 Id. 

10 See Linda I. Sprague, 48 ECAB 386, 389-90 (1997). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 3, 2016 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: April 14, 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