United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

F.H., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

ROBERT LEFLORE STATION, Chicago, IL, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0204 

Issued: April 8, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 13, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 24, 2015 merit 

decision and an August 12, 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 the case.2

 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an upper 

thigh muscle/groin strain causally related to factors of her federal employment; and (2) whether 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 On appeal, appellant submitted new medical evidence. However, as the Board’s review is limited to evidence in 

the case record at the time OWCP made its decision over which the Board has jurisdiction, the Board cannot review 

evidence submitted for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1); D.B., Docket No. 12-1653 (issued 

March 26, 2013). 
2

OWCP properly refused to reopen appellant’s case for further review on the merits pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

On appeal, appellant contends that she has established that the injury occurred as a result 

of her employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 2, 2014 appellant, then a 47-year-old carrier technician, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained a left thigh strain as a result 

of constant walking and ascending and descending stairs. In a note dated November 19, 2014, 

she stated that she was injured on November 15, 2014. Appellant indicated that she had 

completed her route and was returning to the station when she experienced excruciating pain in 

her left upper thigh. She noted that every time she walked up or down stairs, the pain would 

flare up again. The employing establishment controverted the claim. 

In a December 5, 2014 note, a physician with an illegible signature indicated that 

appellant could work “in the station only” due to left groin injury. 

By letter dated December 16, 2014, OWCP informed appellant of the additional 

information that was necessary to establish her claim. Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit 

the requested information. She did not file a timely response. 

By decision dated January 16, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as she failed to 

submit medical evidence establishing a diagnosed medical condition. 

On March 16, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration of the January 16, 2015 decision. 

OWCP thereafter received additional medical evidence. 

In a November 19, 2014 ultrasound of appellants left groin, Dr. Peter Berger, a Boardcertified radiologist, found a small benign-appearing left inguinal lymph node, no evidence of 

soft tissue mass, and no definitive hernia. 

In a January 6, 2015 report, Dr. Matthew T. Johnson, a physician Board-certified in 

family medicine, noted that appellant stated that on November 15, 2014 she “pulled a muscle in 

thigh” after finishing her walk for the employing establishment. He noted that she stated that the 

pain only returned with stairs, not walking. Dr. Johnson diagnosed muscle strain of left thigh 

and noted that appellant was already in physical therapy, but needed pain suppression and 

anti-inflammatory medication. 

Appellant also submitted ongoing treatment notes from November 19, 2014 through 

February 11, 2015 by Dr. Joseph R. Mejia, a physician Board-certified in physical medicine and 

rehabilitation. She related that she injured her left groin on November 19, 2014 when exiting a 

vehicle while working for the employing establishment. Dr. Mejia diagnosed groin strain. 

Appellant also submitted a January 5, 2015 duty status report by a physician with an 

illegible signature; work status reports dated December 5 and 30, 2014 and January 5, 2015 that 

also contained an illegible signature; and discharge instructions dated January 6, 2015 from the 
3

University of Illinois Hospital and Health Science System. She also submitted physical therapy 

notes for treatment of groin strain by Sean O’Connor. 

By decision dated June 24, 2015, OWCP modified its prior decision to reflect that 

appellant had now established a diagnosed condition of the upper thigh muscle/groin strain. 

However, the claim remained denied as she had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to 

establish how the diagnosed condition was attributable to the accepted factors of employment. 

On July 1, 2015 appellant again requested reconsideration. In support thereof, she 

resubmitted the November 19, 2014 progress report by Dr. Mejia. However, Dr. Mejia added a 

June 30, 2015 addendum wherein he noted, “Regarding the mechanism of causation, it is my 

professional opinion that there is a causal relationship between [appellant’s] conditions and the 

employment duties.” 

By decision dated August 12, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s reconsideration request 

without conducting a merit review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

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 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 

 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). 
4

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 -- ISSUE 1 

Appellant established that she experienced the alleged factors of federal employment and 

established that she suffered from a groin strain. However, she failed to establish causal 

relationship between her diagnosed groin strain and the accepted factors of her federal 

employment. Accordingly, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s claim. 

None of the physicians of record provided a rationalized medical opinion establishing a 

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

medical diagnosis. In his progress notes dated from November 19, 2014 through February 11, 

2015, Dr. Mejia noted that she indicated that she injured her left groin while exiting a vehicle at 

the employing establishment and he provided a diagnosis of a groin strain. The Board notes that 

Dr. Mejia’s reports were based upon an inaccurate history of injury as appellant alleged that her 

injury occurred while walking and ascending up and descending stairs, not while exiting a 

vehicle. The Board has held that medical reports must be based on a complete and accurate 

factual and medical background. Medical opinions based on an incomplete or inaccurate history 

are of limited probative value.8

 Dr. Mejia did not provide a well-rationalized medical opinion 

explaining how appellant’s groin strain was causally related to her accepted employment factors. 

Dr. Johnson noted appellant’s employment history and diagnosed muscle strain of the left 

thigh, but failed to provide a well-rationalized opinion linking the medical diagnosis to her 

accepted employment factors. His opinion is of limited probative value as it does not contain 

any medical rationale explaining how her job duties physiologically caused the diagnosed left 

thigh condition.9

 Therefore, Dr. Johnson’s report is insufficient to establish causal relationship. 

Dr. Berger interpreted appellant’s ultrasound, but offered no opinion on causation. 

Accordingly, his opinion is of limited probative value as he did not discuss causal relationship.10 

The record contains numerous documents that contain an illegible signature. These 

documents are of no probative value as it cannot be discerned whether a physician signed the 

documents.11 Similarly, the hospital discharge notes are not signed by a physician. Appellant 

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

8 C.L., Docket No. 14-1585 (issued December 16, 2014); J.R., Docket No. 12-1099 (issued November 7, 2012); 

Douglas M. McQuaid, 52 ECAB 382 (2001). 

9 T.W., Docket No. 15-1603 (issued October 20, 2015). 

10 G.M., Docket No. 14-2057 (issued May 12, 2015). 

11 See Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988); see also Sheila A. Johnson, 46 ECAB 323, 327 (1994). 
5

also submitted physical therapy reports. However, physical therapists are not considered 

physicians as defined by FECA.12

An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture, or speculation. 

Neither the fact that appellant’s claimed condition became apparent during a period of 

employment, nor her belief that the condition was caused by her employment is sufficient to 

establish causal relationship.13 As appellant did not establish that her medical condition was 

causally related to the accepted factor of her employment, OWCP properly denied her claim. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument as part of a formal 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. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128(a) of FECA,14

OWCP regulations provide that the evidence or argument submitted by a claimant must: 

(1) show that 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.15 To be entitled to a merit review 

of an OWCP decision denying or terminating a benefit, a claimant also must file his or her 

application for review within one year of the date of that decision.16 When a claimant fails to 

meet one of the above standards, OWCP will deny the application for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for review on the merits.17 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

OWCP denied appellant’s claim as she failed to submit medical evidence sufficient to 

establish that her accepted medical condition was causally related the accepted employment 

factors. The Board finds that she has not submitted sufficient evidence with her reconsideration 

request to warrant merit review. The only evidence that appellant submitted on reconsideration 

was a June 30, 2015 addendum to the previously submitted report wherein Dr. Mejia concluded 

 12 See David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316 (2006) (lay individuals such as physician assistants, nurses, and physical 

therapists are not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA). A.C., Docket No. 08-1453 (issued 

November 18, 2008). Under FECA, a physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, 

optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law. 

5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). See also Charley V.B. Harley, 2 ECAB 208, 211 (1949) (where the Board held that medical 

opinion, in general, can only be given by a qualified physician). 

13 D.I., 59 ECAB 158 (2007); Ruth R. Price, 16 ECAB 688, 691 (1965). 

14 Supra note 1. Under section 8128 of FECA, “[t]he Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against 

payment of compensation at any time on [her] own motion or on application.” 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

15 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

16 Id. at § 10.607(a). 

17 Id. at § 10.608(b). 
6

that there was causal relationship between her condition and her employment factors. This 

addendum is repetitive of Dr. Mejia’s previously submitted reports. Although he emphasized 

that there is causal relationship, Dr. Mejia did not provide any explanation as to how appellant’s 

injury occurred, causally related to the accepted employment factors. As previously noted, 

Dr. Mejia’s previous reports all noted an inaccurate history of injury. The Board has found that 

evidence which is repetitive, duplicative, or cumulative in nature is insufficient to warrant 

reopening a claim for merit review.18 Accordingly, the Board finds that this report is not 

sufficient to warrant a merit review. 

Appellant did not submit relevant new and pertinent evidence with her request for 

reconsideration. Furthermore, she neither showed that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted 

a specific point of law, nor advanced relevant legal argument not previously considered by 

OWCP. Because appellant failed to meet one of the standards enumerated under section 8128(a) 

of FECA, she was not entitled to further merit review of the claim. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established that she suffered an upper thigh 

muscle/groin strain causally related to factors of her federal employment. Furthermore, the 

Board finds that OWCP properly refused to reopen her case for further review on the merits 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 18 J.B., Docket No. 14-1164 (issued November 20, 2014); Denis M. Dupor, 51 ECAB 482 (2000). 
7

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated August 12 and June 24, 2015 are affirmed. 

Issued: April 8, 2016 

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