United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.F., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Kearny, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1859 

Issued: February 23, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

James D. Muirhead, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 20, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an 

August 5, 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 this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an injury causally 

related to factors of his federal employment. 

 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

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board.3 On October 25, 2013 appellant then a 

56-year-old clerk filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed 

shoulder and arm pain as a result of repetitively opening and closing truck and dock bay doors 

while in the performance of duty. He first became aware of his condition on October 11, 2013 

and realized it was causally related to his employment on October 18, 2013. Appellant did not 

stop work. OWCP denied his claim by decision dated June 30, 2015. In a decision dated 

November 17, 2015, the Board affirmed the June 30, 2015 OWCP decision. The Board found 

that appellant had not met his burden of proof to establish that his claimed conditions were 

causally related to his federal employment. The facts and circumstances of the case as set forth 

in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts relating to 

this appeal are set forth below. 

On May 11, 2016 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the denial of 

his claim. Appellant submitted a February 15, 2016 report updated on May 4, 2016 from 

Dr. David Weiss, an osteopath, who advised that appellant suffered work injuries in the course of 

employment. Dr. Weiss indicated that appellant worked as a dispatcher for the employing 

establishment for about 18 years and his duties included opening and closing heavy bay doors or 

trucks, approximately 100 doors per day, eight hour days, and five days a week. In 2013 

appellant developed shoulder pain. Dr. Weiss reviewed appellant’s treatment at that time noting 

that x-rays and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans in 2013 indicated a right shoulder 

rotator cuff tear. On May 15, 2014 appellant underwent a right shoulder arthroscopy with 

subacromial decompression, distal clavicle excision, debridement of a complex circumferential 

labral tear with biceps tenotomy, lysis of adhesions, and manipulation under anesthesia for 

frozen shoulder. On February 15, 2016 Dr. Weiss noted right shoulder examination findings that 

included no focal acromioclavicular point tenderness, no crepitus, and positive Hawkins’ 

impingement sign. Range of motion tests revealed deficits on forward elevation and abduction, 

and intact muscle strength testing. Dr. Weiss’ diagnoses included cumulative repetitive trauma 

disorder, occupational right shoulder syndrome, right shoulder chronic rotator cuff tendinopathy 

with rotator cuff tear, right shoulder glenoid labral tear, right shoulder impingement syndrome, 

and adhesive capsulitis/frozen right shoulder. He opined that given the nature of appellant’s 

work-related requirements at the employing establishment, including opening and closing heavy 

bay doors, five days a week, 100 doors per day, it was apparent that he had sustained an 

occupational disorder. 

Dr. Weiss referenced medical literature to support that risk factors for shoulder issues 

included postural working above the shoulders in high force with repetition. He also noted that 

medical literature indicated that high repetitive work along or in combination with other factors 

yielded evidence of shoulder tendinopathy, impingement, and rotator cuff tears. Dr. Weiss 

opined that based upon his orthopedic evaluation and current medical literature, appellant had 

sustained a cumulative repetitive trauma disorder with an occupational right shoulder syndrome 

secondary to his work at the employing establishment for 18 years. He further opined that the 

cumulative repetitive trauma work injury was the competent producing factor of appellant’s 

 3

 Docket No. 15-1649 (issued November 17, 2015). 
3

subjective and objective findings. Dr. Weiss also rated permanent impairment for schedule 

award purposes. 

By decision dated August 5, 2016, OWCP denied modification of its June 30, 2015 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim. When an employee claims an injury in the performance of 

duty, he or she must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she experienced a specific 

event, incident, or exposure occurring at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. The 

employee must also establish that such event, incident, or exposure caused an injury.4 

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing the 

presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) 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. 

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.5

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant’s work duties as a clerk and expeditor included 

repetitively opening and closing truck and dock bay doors. However, the Board finds that the 

medical evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that his diagnosed conditions are 

causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

Appellant submitted a February 15, 2016 report updated on May 4, 2016 from Dr. Weiss 

who noted appellant’s work duties and reviewed his treatment history. Dr. Weiss’ diagnoses 

 4 See Walter D. Morehead, 31 ECAB 188, 194 (1979) (occupational disease or illness); Max Haber, 19 ECAB 

243, 247 (1967) (traumatic injury). See generally John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143 (1989). 

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

included cumulative repetitive trauma disorder, occupational right shoulder syndrome, chronic 

rotator cuff tendinopathy with rotator cuff tear to the right shoulder, glenoid labral tear to the 

right shoulder, impingement syndrome to the right shoulder, and adhesive capsulitis/frozen right 

shoulder. He opined that given the nature of appellant’s work-related requirements at the 

employing establishment, including repetitively opening and closing heavy bay doors daily, it 

was apparent that he had sustained an occupational disorder. Dr. Weiss further opined that the 

cumulative repetitive trauma work injury was the competent producing factor of appellant’s 

subjective and objective findings. The Board notes that although this report provides some 

support for causal relationship, it is insufficient to establish the claim as Dr. Weiss provided 

insufficient medical reasoning to support his conclusion on causal relationship.6

 In this report, 

Dr. Weiss failed to explain the process by which opening and closing bay doors and trucks could 

have caused or aggravated appellant’s claimed condition or why such condition was not due to a 

nonwork-related condition such as age-related degenerative changes. Therefore, this report is 

insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.7

 Additionally, Dr. Weiss referenced literature 

and books in support of his medical opinion. However, the Board has held that newspaper 

clippings, medical texts and excerpts from publications are of no evidentiary value in 

establishing causal relationship between a claimed condition and an employee’s federal 

employment as such materials are of general application and are not determinative of whether the 

specific condition claimed is related to the particular employment factors alleged by the 

employee.8

 Dr. Weiss did not sufficiently explain how the medical literature applied to 

appellant’s specific circumstances.9

On appeal, counsel asserts that Dr. Weiss’ report provided a thorough explanation of how 

his work injury occurred and a rationalized opinion addressing how opening and closing bay 

doors could cause such an injury. As explained, he has not presented sufficient medical evidence 

to establish causal relationship between his diagnosed conditions and particular factors of his 

employment. 

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. 

 6 Id.

7 Franklin D. Haislah, 52 ECAB 457 (2001) (medical reports not containing rationale on causal relationship are 

entitled to little probative value); Jimmie H. Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001). 

8 William C. Bush, 40 ECAB 1064, 1075 (1989). See also Roger G. Payne, 55 ECAB 535 (2004) (excerpts from 

publications have little probative value in resolving medical questions unless a physician shows the applicability of the 

general medical principles discussed in the articles to the specific factual situation in a case). 

9

 Dr. Weiss also rated permanent impairment. However, a schedule award under 5 U.S.C. § 8107 can only be 

paid for a condition related to an employment injury. See Veronica Williams, 56 ECAB 367 (2005). As appellant 

has not established an employment-related injury, it is premature to consider his eligibility for benefits under 5 

U.S.C. § 8107. 
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 August 5, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 23, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board