United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

New Orleans, LA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0967 

Issued: August 23, 2017 

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 April 3, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 21, 2016 merit 

decision and a January 31, 2017 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.2

 

ISSUES 

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

developed bilateral ulnar neuropathy causally related to factors of his federal employment; and 

(2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of his 

claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence after OWCP rendered its January 31, 2017 

decision. The Board’s jurisdiction, however, is limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time 

of its final decision, therefore, this additional evidence cannot be considered on appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1); 

Dennis E. Maddy, 47 ECAB 259 (1995); James C. Campbell, 5 ECAB 35, 36 n.2 (1952). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 12, 2016 appellant, then a 59-year-old city letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed bilateral ulnar neuropathy as a result of 

his federal employment duties which entailed sorting mail, picking up large parcels for delivery, 

grabbing bundles of mail, and delivering packages, and which required fine manipulation of the 

fingers. He first became aware of his condition on January 12, 2015 and of its relationship to his 

employment on September 28, 2016. Appellant notified his supervisor of his condition on 

October 13, 2016. He did not indicate that he had stopped work. On the reverse side of the 

claim form, appellant’s supervisor reported that he had several claims with some of the same 

body parts and conditions, noting that this was contradictory to the dates appellant had provided 

pertaining to when he first became aware and related his condition to his employment.3

By letter dated October 18, 2016, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of record 

was insufficient to support his claim. Appellant was advised of the medical and factual evidence 

needed and was afforded 30 days to submit the additional evidence. In another letter of that 

same date, OWCP requested the employing establishment provide additional information 

pertaining to appellant’s occupational disease claim. 

In an undated narrative statement received on November 17, 2016, appellant described 

his employment duties which involved the repetitive use of his arms and hands to case flats and 

letters. He also explained that he would then load the letters and parcels to his delivery truck and 

spend the remainder of the day performing curbside deliveries. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted January 12, 2015 and September 28, 2016 

medical reports from Dr. Michael T. Acurio, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. In the 

January 12, 2015 report, Dr. Acurio noted that appellant complained of bilateral upper extremity 

pain, neck pain, and back pain. He noted that appellant underwent nerve studies which 

demonstrated a moderate neuropathy. Dr. Acurio diagnosed cervical and lumbar disc disease, 

pelvic girdle dysfunction, and ulnar neuropathy. 

In the September 28, 2016 report, Dr. Acurio related that appellant complained of 

increasing numbness, tingling, and pain in his elbows. He was previously noted to have ulnar 

neuropathies bilaterally. Appellant reported that his job entailed the repetitive motion of lifting 

his elbows and transporting mail pieces approximately 1,000 times daily. Physical examination 

of the upper extremities revealed a markedly positive Tinel’s at the elbow. Dr. Acurio diagnosed 

cervical and lumbar disc disease, bilateral shoulder impingement, sacroiliitis, and ulnar 

neuropathies. He opined that appellant’s condition was work related and he provided work 

restrictions. 

By decision dated November 21, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

medical evidence of record did not show that his diagnosed condition was causally related to the 

established factors of his federal employment. 

 3

 Appellant has seven other traumatic injury claims and two other occupational disease claims with a date of 

injury ranging from July 5, 2001 through March 28, 2016. The record before the Board contains no other 

information pertaining to appellant’s other claims. 
3

On December 19, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s decision. He 

provided a narrative statement describing his course of medical treatment for his neck, hand, and 

elbow injuries. No other evidence was received. 

By decision dated January 31, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration, finding that he neither raised substantive legal questions nor included relevant 

and pertinent new evidence. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4

 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 

employment injury.5

 These are the essential elements of every compensation claim regardless of 

whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.6

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.7 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.8 

To establish 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.9 The opinion of the physician must be one of reasonable medical certainty and 

 4 Supra note 1. 

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

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

7 Elaine Pendleton, supra note 5. 

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

9 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.110(a); John M. Tornello, 35 ECAB 234 (1983). 
4

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.10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

OWCP accepted that appellant engaged in repetitive activities fulfill his employment 

duties as a letter carrier. It denied his claim, however, finding that the evidence of record failed 

to establish causal relationship between those activities and his bilateral ulnar neuropathy 

condition. The Board finds that the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish that 

appellant developed bilateral ulnar neuropathy causally related to factors of his federal 

employment as a letter carrier.11

In a January 12, 2015 report, Dr. Acurio noted that a nerve study demonstrated a 

moderate neuropathy. As the physician failed to discuss appellant’s employment duties or 

provide any opinion regarding the casual nature of his condition, this report is insufficient to 

establish appellant’s occupational disease claim. 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.12

In a September 28, 2016 medical report, Dr. Acurio reported that appellant complained of 

increasing numbness, tingling, and pain in his elbows. He diagnosed cervical and lumbar disc 

disease, bilateral shoulder impingement, sacroiliitis, and ulnar neuropathies. Dr. Acurio opined 

that appellant’s condition was work related. The Board finds that Dr. Acurio failed to provide a 

well-rationalized opinion pertaining to the cause of appellant’s injuries and only generally 

repeated his allegations pertaining to his employment factors. Such generalized statements do 

not establish causal relationship because they merely repeat appellant’s allegations and are 

unsupported by adequate medical rationale explaining how or why this physical activity actually 

caused the diagnosed condition.13 Dr. Acurio failed to provide a fully detailed report as he made 

no mention of appellant’s medical history and only briefly noted findings on physical 

examination and review of diagnostic testing. Appellant’s medical history is of particular 

importance given that appellant has filed nine prior workers’ compensation claims.14 Moreover, 

while Dr. Acurio had some knowledge of appellant’s repetitive employment duties, his statement 

on causation failed to provide a sufficient explanation as to the mechanism of injury pertaining to 

 10 James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991). 

11 S.Y., Docket No. 11-1816 (issued March 16, 2012). 

12 B.B., Docket No. 17-919 (issued June 28, 2017). 

13 K.W., Docket No. 10-98 (issued September 10, 2010). 

14 A well-rationalized opinion is particularly warranted when there is a history of preexisting condition. T.M., 

Docket No. 08-975 (issued February 6, 2009); Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379 (2006). 
5

this occupational disease claim as alleged by appellant, namely, how repetitive sorting and 

delivering mail/packages would cause his bilateral ulnar neuropathy.15 Without explaining how 

physiologically the movements involved in appellant’s employment duties caused or contributed 

to his diagnosed condition, his opinion on causal relationship is equivocal in nature and of 

limited probative value.16 

On appeal appellant asserts that his ulnar nerve condition is work related and caused him 

difficulty in performing his employment duties. The Board has held an award of compensation 

may not be based on surmise, conjecture, speculation, or on the employee’s own belief of causal 

relation.17 Appellant’s honest belief that his occupational employment duties caused his medical 

injury is not in question, but that belief, however sincerely held, does not constitute the medical 

evidence necessary to establish causal relationship.18 In the instant case, the record lacks 

rationalized medical evidence establishing causal relationship between appellant’s federal 

employment duties as a letter carrier and his diagnosed bilateral ulnar neuropathy. Thus, 

appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof.19 

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

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

§ 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 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 

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.20 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)(3), OWCP will deny the application for 

reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on the merits.21

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

16 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). 

17 D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006). 

18 P.P., Docket No. 17-0483 (issued June 13, 2017). 

19 See supra note 16. 

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

21 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see also K.H., 59 ECAB 495 (2008). 
6

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)(3), requiring OWCP to reopen the case for review of the merits of the 

claim. In his 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 legal 

argument. Appellant argued that his injury was employment related and described his 

employment duties and subsequent medical treatment.22 The underlying issue in this case was 

whether appellant developed bilateral ulnar neuropathy causally related to his accepted repetitive 

employment duties. That is a medical issue which must be addressed by relevant new medical 

evidence.23 In this case, appellant did not submit any relevant and pertinent new medical 

evidence. 

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

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 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 constitute 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 has not met his burden of proof to establish that his 

bilateral ulnar neuropathy is causally related to factors of his federal employment as a letter 

carrier. The Board further finds that OWCP properly denied his request for reconsideration of 

the merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 22 Sherry A. Hunt, 49 ECAB 467 (1998). 

23 See Bobbie F. Cowart, 55 ECAB 746 (2004). 
7

ORDER 

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

decisions dated January 31, 2017 and November 21, 2016 are affirmed. 

Issued: August 23, 2017 

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