United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.D., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MARBLEHEAD POST 

OFFICE, Marblehead, MA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0771 

Issued: July 22, 2016 

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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 7, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 1, 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 claim. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a right knee injury 

on February 11, 2015 causally related to the accepted employment incident. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 26, 2015 appellant, then a 51-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed a right knee condition as a result of 

exiting of a mail truck and jumping into snow banks all day on February 11, 2015. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

Dr. Ira Evans, an orthopedic surgeon, provided a March 19, 2015 return to work note 

which diagnosed “right knee” and a March 19, 2015 therapy prescription. 

By letter dated May 22, 2015, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies in her claim. 

It afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence. In a separate letter also dated May 22, 

2015, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide information regarding 

appellant’s work duties. 

In a June 5, 2015 letter, Kenneth M. Bransfield, Marblehead Postmaster, stated that when 

appellant filed her claim she had just returned from left ankle surgery and was working with 

restrictions. He advised that they were going through a very snowy winter and conditions would 

change with the snow melting and then turning to ice overnight. Mr. Bransfield noted that the 

route appellant covered had very restrictive parking which caused her to have to exit and enter 

the vehicle by climbing into snowbanks. A copy of a position description for city carrier was 

provided. 

By decision dated June 22, 2015, OWCP evaluated the claim as a claim for traumatic 

injury, but denied the claim finding that the medical component of fact of injury was not 

established. It explained that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition “in connection” with the claimed event. 

On July 7, 2015 OWCP received appellant’s June 29, 2015 request for an oral hearing 

before an OWCP hearing representative. An oral hearing was held on November 18, 2015, 

during which appellant testified. Appellant indicated that she worked on very narrow streets in 

Marblehead, MA and it had snowed a couple of feet on February 11, 2015, so she was jumping 

out in snowbanks all day. She indicated that her knee was swollen and her physician had to 

drain fluid out. Appellant stated that she had “park and loop” and so she parked her mail truck, 

got out of the truck to deliver mail for a couple relays or a couple streets, and then repeated the 

process. She indicated that in 2001 she had anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction 

surgery in the right knee and had been back to full-time work. Appellant indicated that she was 

out of work for 13 weeks with ankle surgery and had returned to work on February 2, 2015. 

A March 9, 2015 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report indicated status post 

ACL graft reconstruction changes, mild chronic thickening of the medial collateral ligament, 

mild tricompartmental degenerative chondromalacia, and moderate joint effusion. Diagnostic 

imaging of the knee dated November 18, 2015 was also received. 

In a June 19, 2015 letter, Dr. Evans indicated that appellant has had persistent right knee 

pain secondary to an injury sustained at work. He noted that she has had ACL reconstruction in 

that knee in the past and a right knee MRI scan demonstrated degenerative chondromalacia. 

Dr. Evans indicated that appellant has had significant exacerbation of her knee pain secondary to 

the snow that she had to climb over during the recent winter months. He noted an exacerbation 

of preexisting osteoarthritis and status post ACL reconstruction due to increased workload at 

work. Dr. Evans also provided a June 11, 2015 duty status report and a June 11, 2015 work note 

containing a diagnosis of right knee injury. 
3

In a January 7, 2016 letter, Dr. Evans indicated that appellant injured her right knee while 

delivering mail through snowbanks and on shoveled walkways. He noted that she had recurrent 

pain and effusion in her right knee since her injury during the winter of 2015. 

By decision dated February 1, 2016, the OWCP hearing representative modified the prior 

decision to reflect that fact of injury had been established, but denied the claim because causal 

relationship had not been established. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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 and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the 

employment injury.2 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.3 

In order 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 

conjunctively. First, the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he actually 

experienced the employment incident that is alleged to have occurred.4 An employee has not 

met his burden of proof of establishing the occurrence of an injury when there are such 

inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt upon the validity of the claim.5 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.6 

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.7 Neither the fact that a disease or 

condition manifests itself during a period of employment nor the belief that the disease or 

 2 Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

3 See Irene St. John, 50 ECAB 521 (1999); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

4 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001). 

5 S.N., Docket No. 12-1222 (issued August 23, 2013); Tia L. Love, 40 ECAB 586, 590 (1989). 

6 Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340 (2003). 

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

condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or incidents is sufficient to establish 

causal relationship.8

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that the February 11, 2015 work incident occurred as alleged and a 

medical diagnosis was established, but denied the claim as the medical evidence of record did 

not establish a causal relationship between the February 11, 2015 work incident and the 

diagnosed right knee conditions. The Board agrees. 

Appellant submitted several reports from Dr. Evans in which he diagnosed appellant with 

osteoarthritis, chondromalacia, and effusion of the right knee. Dr. Evans indicated that appellant 

has had significant exacerbation of her knee pain secondary to all the snow that she had to climb 

over during the recent winter months. He noted an exacerbation of preexisting osteoarthritis and 

status post ACL reconstruction due to increased workload at work. Dr. Evans also indicated that 

appellant injured her right knee while delivering mail through snowbanks and on shoveled 

walkways and that she had recurrent pain and effusion in her right knee since her injury during 

the winter of 2015. However, he failed to provide a medical opinion as to how the reported work 

incident caused or aggravated a medical condition. The Board has held that a medical report is 

of limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship if it contains a conclusion regarding 

causal relationship which is unsupported by medical rationale.9

 Dr. Evans simply did not explain 

the medical process as to how appellant’s work activities physiologically caused her knee 

condition.10 Accordingly, his reports are of limited probative value. 

The diagnostic testing reports of record are also of diminished probative value and are 

insufficient to establish appellant’s claim as none of the physicians provided any opinion on the 

cause of appellant’s diagnosed conditions.11

Causal relationship is a medical question that must be established by probative medical 

opinion from a physician.12 In this case, the Board finds that none of the medical evidence 

appellant submitted constitutes rationalized medical evidence which based upon a specific and 

accurate history of employment events, substantiates causal relationship.13 Accordingly, the 

Board finds that OWCP properly denied her claim because she has not established a causal 

relationship between the work incident and her diagnosed conditions. 

 8 Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997). 

9 T.M., Docket No. 08-975 (issued February 6, 2009); S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009). 

 10 D.B., Docket No. 14-0295 (April 25, 2014). 

11 C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); S.E., supra note 9. 

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

13 Patricia J. Bolleter, 40 ECAB 373 (1988). 
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 her burden of proof to establish an injury on 

February 11, 2015 causally related to the accepted employment incident. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated February 1, 2016 is affirmed. 

Issued: July 22, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board