United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.W., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD 

SAFETY & INSPECTION SERVICE, 

Minneapolis, MN, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0097 

Issued: April 11, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Susie Beavers, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 21, 2016 appellant, through his representative, filed a timely appeal from an 

August 31, 2016 merit 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 the case. 

 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

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty. 

On appeal appellant contends that he strongly believes that his carpal tunnel syndrome 

was a direct result of the duties of his federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 18, 2016 appellant, then a 53-year-old food inspector, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that his work as a meat inspector resulted in numbness and 

pain in his hands. He listed the nature of the disease as carpal tunnel syndrome. In an 

accompanying statement, appellant indicated that he started working for the employing 

establishment in December 1989, worked approximately 50 hours a week, and inspected poultry 

and hogs. He described his work duties which included holding a knife and hook to check, flip, 

and rotate hogs. Appellant noted that the pain in his hands started in November 2015 and had 

worsened. He also related that he used arm and elbow braces at night. Appellant submitted a 

position description for a food inspector. 

In a June 2, 2016 report, Dr. James E. McKiernan, a Board-certified neurologist, 

interpreted an electromyogram (EMG) of appellant’s wrists as evincing bilateral median 

neuropathies. He noted that the abnormalities were mild in degree and localized best at or near 

the carpal tunnel. Dr. McKiernan noted that the abnormalities were slightly worse on the right 

than the left. He indicated that appellant’s ulnar nerve studies were normal. 

By letter dated July 19, 2016, OWCP informed appellant that further information was 

necessary to support his claim, and afforded him 30 days to submit the information. 

In a witness statement dated August 9, 2016, Cristino R. Colon, a Doctor of Veterinarian 

Medicine for the employing establishment, related that he reviewed all of appellant’s statements 

and found them to be accurate. 

By letter dated August 9, 2016, appellant related that the employment factors he claimed 

caused his conditions were the repetitive movement of his wrists during work activities as a meat 

inspector. He noted that his symptoms began in November 2015. 

Appellant submitted reports from Dr. Sunil Thirkannad, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon specializing in hand surgery, dated April 21, June 9, and July 21, 2016. Dr. Thirkannad 

conducted an EMG and nerve conduction velocity tests and diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel 

syndrome and bilateral lesions of the ulnar nerve syndrome. He managed appellant’s condition 

with bilateral wristlets, elbow pads, and carpal tunnel injections. Dr. Thirkannad noted that he 

wanted to schedule surgery. 

By decision dated August 31, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as it determined that 

appellant had not established that the “events” occurred as alleged and appellant had not 

submitted a physician’s opinion that provided that appellant’s condition was causally related to 
3

his work duties as a food inspector. It therefore concluded that appellant had not established fact 

of injury. 

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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and 

that any disabilities and/or specific conditions for which compensation is claimed are causally 

related to the employment injury.3 These are the essential elements of each and every 

compensation claim regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an 

occupational disease.4

 

Whether an employee actually sustained an injury in the performance of duty begins with 

an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established.5 To establish fact of injury in an 

occupational disease claim, 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 

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

causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. Rationalized medical opinion 

evidence is evidence which includes a physician’s 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, 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

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that the evidence of record supports that appellant was exposed to the 

employment factors alleged. An employee’s statement alleging that an injury occurred at a given 

time and in a given manner is of great probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong or 

persuasive evidence.8 Appellant described his work inspecting poultry and hogs and contended 

 3 Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

4 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

5 See S.P., 59 ECAB 184, 188 (2007). 

6 See Roy L. Humphrey ̧ 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); see also P.W., Docket No. 10-2402 (issued August 5, 2011). 

7 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); supra note 4. 

8 C.V., Docket No. 15-0615 (issued September 13, 2016). 
4

that it involved repetitive motion with his hands. His statement with regard to his duties is 

uncontradicted by any other evidence in the record. In fact, appellant’s statement was supported 

by the statement of Dr. Colon, a veterinarian at the employing establishment, who related that he 

had reviewed appellant’s statements and found them to be accurate. Consequently, it is found 

that appellant has established the existence of the alleged employment factors. 

Furthermore, the evidence of record establishes and the Board finds that appellant has 

been diagnosed with bilateral carpal syndrome and bilateral ulnar nerve syndrome. 

The Board finds, however, that appellant’s claim must be denied as he failed to establish 

a causal relationship between the accepted employment factors and his accepted medical 

diagnosed conditions. None of the physicians provided a rationalized opinion establishing a 

causal relationship between the accepted factors of appellant’s federal employment and his 

medical diagnoses. Dr. Thirkannad noted that he treated appellant for bilateral carpal tunnel 

syndrome bilateral ulnar nerve syndrome, but did not provide an opinion addressing the cause of 

these conditions. Similarly, Dr. McKiernan merely interpreted an EMG test but provided no 

opinion on causation. The Board has long held that 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.9

 As neither Dr. Thirkannad nor Dr. McKiernan provided an opinion 

addressing the cause of appellant’s medical diagnoses, these opinions are insufficient to establish 

causal relationship. 

The Board has held that the mere fact that a condition manifests itself during a period of 

employment does not raise an inference of causal relation.10 An award of compensation may not 

be based on surmise, conjecture, speculation, or upon appellant’s own belief that there was a 

causal relationship between his or her condition and his or her employment.11 Causal 

relationship must be based on rationalized medical opinion evidence.12 A physician must 

accurately describe appellant’s work duties and medically explain the pathophysiological process 

by which these duties would have caused or aggravated his condition.13 As appellant did not 

submit a rationalized medical opinion supporting that his diagnosed conditions were causally 

related to the accepted employment factors, he did not meet his burden of proof. 

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. 

 9 G.M., Docket No. 14-2057 (issued May 12, 2015); C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); Willie M. 

Miller, 53 ECAB 697 (2002). 

10 L.D., Docket No. 09-1503 (issued April 15, 2010); D.I., 59 ECAB 158 (2007); Daniel O. Vasquez, 57 ECAB 

559 (2006). 

11 Patricia J. Glenn, 53 ECAB 159, 160 (2001). 

12 M.E., Docket No. 14-1064 (issued September 29, 2014). 

13 Solomon Polen, 51 ECAB 341 (2000) (rationalized medical evidence must relate specific employment factors 

identified by the claimant to the claimant’s condition, with stated reasons by a physician). See also G.G., Docket No 

15-234 (issued April 9, 2015). 
5

CONCLUSION 

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

causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated August 31, 2016 is affirmed, as modified. 

Issued: April 11, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board