United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.C., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Houston, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0985 

Issued: August 17, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 8, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal of a January 13, 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 to 

consider the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an occupational 

disease of the left shoulder in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On November 16, 2015 appellant, then a 39-year-old rural carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that on November 9, 2015 she became aware of a strain and 

shoulder pain which she attributed to her employment duties. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

In a letter dated November 23, 2015, OWCP noted receiving appellant’s claim form, but 

no other information in support of her claim. It requested that she describe how her injury 

occurred, provide a medical diagnosis for her condition, and provide a physician’s opinion as to 

how employment activities caused, contributed to, or aggravated her medical condition. 

Appellant submitted a note and a duty status report (Form CA-17) from Dr. Kamran 

Shabtai, a physician Board-certified in preventative medicine, providing a date of injury of 

November 9, 2015. Dr. Shabtai noted that appellant started experiencing pain in her left 

shoulder while working and diagnosed synovitis and tenosynovitis of the left shoulder. He 

provided work restrictions. Dr. Shabtai noted that appellant had decreased range of motion in 

her left shoulder with weakness and swelling. He found diffuse tenderness and positive 

impingement. Dr. Shabtai reviewed x-rays which were normal. He reexamined appellant on 

November 23, 2015 for pain in her left shoulder while working on November 9, 2015. 

Dr. Shabtai diagnosed synovitis and tenosynovitis left shoulder. 

Appellant also sought treatment from Dr. Marcos Masson, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, who examined her on November 12 and December 3, 2015. Dr. Masson noted that 

appellant developed left shoulder pain from repetitive overhead reaching and had a previous 

diagnosis of thoracic outlet syndrome. He diagnosed left brachial plexus disorders. 

The employing establishment submitted a statement from appellant noting that on 

November 7, 2015 she reported pain in her left shoulder. On November 9, 2015 appellant 

indicated that she was not clear how her shoulder pain began, but when she started to reach up to 

case mail she could feel pain. She denied hitting her shoulder, twisting, or sudden jerks. On 

November 12, 2015 appellant described her onset of shoulder pain, noting that on November 9, 

2015 she was performing her normal work including picking up tubs of flats from the floor and 

placing them on her case. She alleged, “After I emptied all the mail from the tubs, I began to 

case the flats. An hour or and an hour and a half in casing the flats, I noticed a sharp pain in my 

left shoulder when I would reach up.” 

The employing establishment provided appellant’s job description which included casing, 

delivering, and collecting mail along a prescribed rural route using a vehicle. 

Dr. Shabtai examined appellant on December 11 and 30, 2015 and repeated his earlier 

diagnoses and findings. He recommended additional physical therapy and a magnetic resonance 

imaging scan. 

By decision dated January 13, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that she 

failed to submit factual evidence as to how her federal employment contributed to her condition. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

OWCP’s regulations define an occupational disease as “a condition produced by the work 

environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.”2

 To establish that an injury 

was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational disease claim, a claimant must 

 2

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q). 
3

submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease 

or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) a factual statement identifying employment 

factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or 

condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the employment factors identified by the 

claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for which compensation is claimed or, stated 

differently, medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the 

employment factors identified by the claimant.3

 

An employee’s statement 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.4

 

Moreover, an injury does not have to be confirmed by eyewitnesses. An employee’s statement, 

however, must be consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances and his or her 

subsequent course of action. An employee has not met his or her burden in 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. Circumstances such as late notification of injury, lack of 

confirmation of injury, continuing to work without apparent difficulty following the alleged 

injury, and failure to obtain medical treatment may, if otherwise unexplained, cast doubt on an 

employee’s statement in determining whether a prima facie case has been established.5

The evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion 

evidence, based upon a complete factual and medical background, showing a causal relationship 

between the claimed condition and identified factors. The belief of a claimant that a condition 

was caused or aggravated by employment duties is insufficient to establish causal relation.6

ANALYSIS 

In order to establish her occupational disease claim, appellant must submit a medical 

report diagnosing a condition. She has provided medical evidence from Drs. Shabtai and 

Masson diagnosing synovitis and tenosynovitis, and left brachial plexus disorder, respectively. 

The next requirement to establish an occupational disease claim is the identification of 

the implicated employment factors. OWCP denied the claim on this basis. However, as noted, 

an employee’s statement 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. The record 

contains appellant’s description of her employment duties as provided to the employing 

establishment. Appellant initially reported pain in her left shoulder to the employing 

establishment on November 7, 2015. On November 9, 2015 she reported that she was 

experiencing pain while reaching up to case mail. On November 12, 2015 appellant provided a 

more detailed description to the employing establishment, noting that on November 9, 2015 she 

was performing her normal work including picking up tubs of flats from the floor and placing 

 3 Lourdes Harris, 45 ECAB 545, 547 (1994). 

4 R.T., Docket No. 08-408 (issued December 16, 2008); Gregory J. Reser, 57 ECAB 277 (2005). 

5 Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002). 

6 Supra note 3. 
4

them on her case and casing the flats of mail. She asserted that, after an hour or more of casing 

flats, she noticed a sharp pain in her left shoulder when she reached up. The Board finds that 

appellant has indicated that she experienced shoulder pain for a period longer than one workday 

or work shift and attributed this condition to her duties of lifting tubs and casing flats. There are 

not such inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt on whether the claimed work 

factors occurred as alleged. The Board finds that appellant has sufficiently identified and 

established the work factors she alleged caused her diagnosed condition.7

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish factors of her 

federal employment that she has alleged caused an occupational disease of the left shoulder. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 13, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further action in 

conformance with this decision. 

Issued: August 17, 2016 

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 

 7 See Louise F. Garnett, 47 ECAB 639 (1996); Louise G. Moore, 20 ECAB 165 (1968).