United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Minneapolis, MN, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0821 

Issued: July 2, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 26, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 5, 2014 merit 

decision and a February 23, 2015 nonmerit 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. 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish right Achilles 

tendinopathy and minimal interstitial laminar tear as a result of factors of his federal 

employment; and (2) whether OWCP properly denied his request for further merit review under 

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 10, 2014 appellant, then a 23-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed a right Achilles strain as a result of his federal 

employment duties. He first became aware of his condition and of its relationship to his 

employment on June 25, 2014 when he was on a walking route and began to feel pain in his 

lower leg area. After approximately 20 minutes, appellant was unable to walk due to increased 

pain. He sought emergency room (ER) treatment that same date and was informed he strained 

his right Achilles. 

By letter dated July 16, 2014, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of record was 

insufficient to support his claim. It provided a questionnaire for completion and advised him to 

clarify whether he was claiming an occupational disease or traumatic injury based on the 

definitions provided. Appellant was informed of the medical and factual evidence needed and 

was directed to submit it within 30 days. 

In a July 24, 2014 narrative statement, appellant responded to OWCP’s questionnaire 

stating that he was filing an occupational disease claim. He reported that his employment duties 

consisted of constantly walking up and down for five to six hours a day. Appellant’s physician 

informed appellant that the constant walking on the job caused his Achilles injury. Appellant 

further stated that he did not engage in hobbies or activities which would affect his Achilles. 

In a June 25, 2014 ER report, Phillip Stiles, a physician assistant (PA-C) stated that 

appellant presented to the ER with complaints of pain which began approximately four hours ago 

in the right lower extremity while walking on his postal service mail route. PA Stiles noted risk 

factors of repetitive stress of walking several miles per day for appellant’s employment as a mail 

carrier. He diagnosed right Achilles tendinitis and checked the box marked “Yes” when asked if 

the condition was work related. 

In a July 2, 2014 diagnostic report, Dr. Glenn Schultes, a Board-certified diagnostic 

radiologist, reported that an x-ray of the right ankle revealed minimal thickening of the Achilles 

with suggestion of mild edema, advising a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan for 

evaluation of the Achilles tendon for tendinopathy or tear. 

In a July 2, 2014 medical report, Dr. Loring J. Stead, a Doctor of Podiatric Medicine, 

reported that appellant was recently walking on his postal route and started having an increased 

ache on the back part of the right heel that developed into pain which caused him to limp. 

Appellant could not recall one particular change in shoe gear, activity, or injury that caused this 

to occur. It acutely started on his route. Upon physical examination and review of diagnostic 

studies, Dr. Stead diagnosed Achilles tendinitis with injury, right ankle with possible tear. He 

restricted appellant from work and recommended an MRI scan of the right ankle. In a Medical 

Report to Employer Form that same date, Dr. Stead checked the box marked “Yes” when asked 

if the condition was work related. 

In a July 14, 2014 diagnostic report, Dr. Schultes reported that an MRI scan of the right 

ankle revealed mild distal Achilles tendinopathy and minimal interstitial/intralaminar tear of the 

distal Achilles tendon, but no significant partial tear or full thickness tear. 
3

In a July 16, 2014 medical report, Dr. Stead reported that appellant was injured at work 

on June 25, 2014. He reviewed the July 14, 2014 MRI scan of the right ankle and diagnosed 

right Achilles tendinopathy with mild interstitial tear. In a Medical Report to Employer Form of 

that same date, Dr. Stead checked the box marked “Yes” when asked if the condition was work 

related. 

In a July 16, 2014 medical report, Dr. David Lowe, Board-certified in internal medicine, 

reported that appellant injured his Achilles tendon while at work on June 25, 2014. He 

diagnosed right Achilles tendon rupture and noted a scheduled surgical repair on July 18, 2014. 

In medical reports dated August 27 and October 8, 2014, Dr. Stead reported that 

appellant was injured at work on June 25, 2014 and was treated for Achilles tendinitis. He stated 

that the Achilles tendinopathy with slight interstitial tear had improved postoperatively, 

recommended physical therapy, and provided work restrictions. 

Physical therapy treatment notes dated July 17 to September 5, 2014 were also submitted. 

By decision dated October 28, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

medical evidence failed to establish that his right distal Achilles tendinopathy and minimal 

laminal tear were causally related to his accepted federal employment duties.2

 

On January 30, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration. He argued that there was a 

clear relationship between his Achilles injury and his work-related duties as he had no symptoms 

prior to his employment. Appellant further argued that his physicians also believed his injury 

was work related. 

In support of his claim, appellant resubmitted the medical reports of Drs. Schultes, Stead, 

and Lowe previously of record. He also resubmitted PA-C Stiles June 25, 2014 ER report, a 

July 17, 2014 physical therapy treatment note, and prior referral and request for authorization 

forms. 

By decision dated February 23, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration finding that he neither raised substantive legal questions nor included new and 

relevant evidence. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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 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 

 2

 The Board notes that while OWCP’s decision was dated October 28, 2014, OWCP’s subsequent February 23, 

2015 nonmerit decision references the date of the merit decision as November 5, 2014. 
4

employment injury.3

 These are the essential elements of every compensation claim regardless of 

whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or occupational disease.4

In order to determine whether an employee actually sustained an 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 which must be considered in 

conjunction with one another. The first component to be established is that the employee 

actually experienced the employment incident which is alleged to have occurred.5 The second 

component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and generally can be 

established only by medical evidence. 

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 

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 

To establish a causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant 

disability claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit rationalized 

medical opinion evidence based on a complete factual and medical background, supporting such 

a causal relationship.7 The opinion of the physician 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. This 

medical opinion must include an accurate history of the employee’s employment injury and must 

explain how the condition is related to the injury. 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 -- ISSUE 1 

OWCP accepted that appellant engaged in repetitive walking during his employment 

duties as a city carrier. It denied his claim as the evidence submitted failed to establish a causal 

relationship between repetitive walking and his diagnosed right Achilles tendinopathy and 

minimal interstitial laminar tear. The Board finds on appeal that the medical evidence of record 

is insufficient to establish Achilles tendinopathy and a minimal interstitial laminar tear causally 

related to factors of his federal employment as a city carrier. 

 3 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1154 (1989). 

4 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

5 Elaine Pendleton, supra note 3. 

6 See Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994). 

7 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.110(a); John M. Tornello, 35 ECAB 234 (1983). 

8 James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991). 
5

In medical reports dated July 2 to October 8, 2014, Dr. Stead provided physical 

examination findings, reviewed diagnostic tests, and diagnosed Achilles tendinopathy and 

minimal interstitial laminar tear. He reported that appellant was injured at work on 

June 25, 2014. In Medical Report to Employer Forms, Dr. Stead diagnosed right Achilles 

tendinopathy with mild interstitial tear and checked the box marked “Yes” when asked if the 

condition was work related. 

The Board finds that the opinion of Dr. Stead is not well rationalized. Dr. Stead failed to 

provide a detailed medical history or description of appellant’s federal employment duties as a 

city carrier which may have caused him injury. While his July 2, 2014 report noted that 

appellant did not recall one particular change in shoe gear, activity, or injury that caused his pain, 

his subsequent reports identify June 25, 2014 as the specific date of injury. Thus, it appears that 

Dr. Stead is attributing appellant’s Achilles injury to a traumatic incident from a single 

occurrence within a single workday on June 25, 2014, rather than an occupational injury 

produced by his work environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift as alleged 

by appellant in this claim.9

 

Though Dr. Stead checked the box marked “yes” when asked if he believed that 

appellant’s condition was caused or aggravated by the employment incident, the Board has held 

that a checkmark, without medical rationale explaining how the work condition caused the 

alleged injury, is of diminished probative value and insufficient to establish causal relationship.10 

His statement on causation fails to provide a sufficient explanation as to the mechanism of injury 

pertaining to this occupational disease claim, namely, how repetitive walking would have caused 

or aggravated appellant’s right Achilles tendinopathy or mild interstitial tear.11 Without 

explaining how appellant’s employment duties caused or contributed to the diagnosed condition, 

his opinion on causal relationship is equivocal in nature and of limited probative value.12 

Medical reports without rationale on causal relationship are of diminished probative value and do 

not meet an employee’s burden of proof.13 

Dr. Schultes’ July 2 and 14, 2014 reports interpreted diagnostic imaging studies, but 

provided no opinion on the cause of appellant’s injury.14 The Board has held that medical 

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

limited probative value.15 Dr. Lowe’s July 16, 2014 report noted that appellant injured his 

 9

 A traumatic injury means a condition of the body caused by a specific event or incident, or series of events or 

incidents, within a single workday or shift. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). An occupational disease is defined as a condition 

produced by the work environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q). 

10 See Calvin E. King, Jr., 51 ECAB 394 (2000); see also Frederick E. Howard, Jr., 41 ECAB 843 (1990). 

11 S.W., Docket 08-2538 (issued May 21, 2009). 

12 See L.M., Docket No. 14-973 (issued August 25, 2014); R.G., Docket No. 14-113 (issued April 25, 2014); 

K.M., Docket No. 13-1459 (issued December 5, 2013); A.J., Docket No. 12-548 (issued November 16, 2012). 

13 Id.

14 D.H., Docket No. 11-1739 (issued April 18, 2012). 

15 C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009).
6

Achilles tendon while at work on June 25, 2014, but he did not profess sufficient knowledge of 

appellant’s specific job duties or provide a rationalized explanation as to the cause of his injury. 

Moreover, his report does not provide support for an occupational disease claim as it appears that 

he is attributing appellant’s condition to a traumatic injury. Thus, Dr. Lowe’s opinion is of 

limited probative value and insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.16 The physical 

therapy and physician assistant reports are lacking in probative value as they were not signed by 

a physician. Registered nurses, physical therapists, and physicians assistant, are not physicians 

as defined under FECA.17 

The record lacks rationalized medical evidence establishing a causal relationship between 

appellant’s federal employment duties as a city carrier and his diagnosed right Achilles 

conditions. Thus, appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof. 

Appellant may submit additional evidence, together with a written request for 

reconsideration, to OWCP within one year of the Board’s merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.606 and 10.607. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under FECA section 8128(a), OWCP 

regulations provide that the evidence or argument submitted by a claimant must: (1) show that 

the OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advance a relevant legal 

argument not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitute relevant and pertinent new 

evidence not previously considered by OWCP.18 Section 10.608(b) of OWCP regulations 

provide that when an application for reconsideration does not meet at least one of the three 

requirements enumerated under section 10.606(b)(2), OWCP will deny the application for 

reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on the merits.19

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

The Board finds that the refusal of OWCP to reopen appellant’s case for further 

consideration of the merits of his claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a), did not constitute an 

abuse of discretion. 

The issue presented on appeal is whether appellant met any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2), requiring OWCP to reopen the case for review of the merits of the claim. 

In his January 30, 2015 application for reconsideration, appellant did not show that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law. He did not advance a new and relevant 

 16 Supra note 12. 

17 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2) of FECA provides as follows: “(2) ‘physician’ includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, 

clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as 

defined by State law.” See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238 (2005). 

18 D.K., 59 ECAB 141 (2007). 

19 K.H., 59 ECAB 495 (2008). 
7

legal argument. Appellant argued that his injury was employment related, but the underlying 

issue in this case was whether he sustained right Achilles tendinopathy and mild interstitial tear 

causally related to his federal employment duties as a city carrier. That is a medical issue which 

must be addressed by relevant medical evidence.20 Appellant, however, failed to submit new and 

relevant medical evidence in support of his claim. 

The only evidence submitted were medical reports which had been previously considered 

by OWCP in its November 5, 2014 merit decision. As the reports repeat evidence already in the 

case record, they do not constitute relevant and pertinent new evidence. Material which is 

duplicative does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.21 

The Board accordingly finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2). Appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a 

specific point of law, advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP, or 

submit relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish that his right 

Achilles tendinopathy and minimal interstitial laminar tear are causally related to factors of his 

federal employment as a city carrier. OWCP properly denied his request for reconsideration 

without a merit review. 

 20 See Bobbie F. Cowart, 55 ECAB 746 (2004). 

21 See Kenneth R. Mroczkowski, 40 ECAB 855 (1989). 
8

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’ 

decisions dated February 23, 2015 and November 5, 2014 are affirmed. 

Issued: July 2, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board