United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Madison, WI, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0023 

Issued: February 19, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 7, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 8, 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 this case.2

 

ISSUES 

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

leg conditions were causally related to a May 9, 2015 employment incident; and (2) whether 

OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The Board notes that, following the issuance of the August 12, 2015 OWCP decision, appellant submitted new 

evidence. The Board is precluded from reviewing evidence which was not before OWCP at the time it issued its 

final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2 

On appeal, appellant contends that her injury was not a preexisting injury or condition 

and occurred while performing her job duties, which required an excessive amount of walking 

and climbing stairs and hills. She argues that she had requested light-duty work while injured 

but was denied. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 9, 2015 appellant, a 39-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that she sustained an injury to her right leg and ankle on that date. She 

indicated that she felt a pull in her right calf muscle while going down steps. Appellant stopped 

work on May 9, 2015. 

Appellant submitted a May 9, 2015 report from Dr. Terry Strawser, a family practitioner, 

who diagnosed “sprain/strain of knee/leg.” She complained of constant pain of the right ankle 

since the morning of May 9, 2015, and that the pain made walking difficult. Dr. Strawser noted 

that appellant reported sudden onset of injury. Appellant denied any prior similar problems. 

X-rays of the ankle that date revealed no fractures, dislocations, or soft tissue swelling. In a 

May 9, 2015 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Strawser diagnosed right knee and leg 

sprain/strain and released her to restricted duties. In an accompanying May 9, 2015 work status 

note, he noted seeing appellant that day for an injury that could be compensable under workers’ 

compensation statutes. Dr. Strawser repeated his diagnosis and released appellant to “sit down 

work mainly.” 

In a May 16, 2015 report, Dr. Strawser asserted that appellant’s pain was so bad that it 

was hard for her to walk. He indicated that when appellant was walking her postal route she felt 

a right ankle pain that gradually worsened. Examination was normal. Dr. Strawser repeated his 

diagnosis and advised that appellant was “stable/improved.” In a May 16, 2015 duty status 

report (Form CA-17) and an attached May 16, 2015 work status note, he reiterated appellant’s 

diagnoses and work restrictions, and noted that the injury could be compensable. In a May 23, 

2015 progress report, Dr. Strawser restated the history from his prior reports and opined that 

appellant’s condition was “stable/improved.” In a May 23, 2015 duty status report (Form CA17) and accompanying May 23, 2015 work status note, he released appellant to full-duty work 

without restrictions and restated that appellant’s condition could be work related. 

In a June 5, 2015 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of her claim and 

afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence and respond to its inquiries. 

Appellant resubmitted Dr. Strawser’s May 23, 2015 progress report which reiterated his 

diagnosis and medical opinions, noting that appellant’s reported muscle pain was an abnormal 

symptom related to her complaint. 

By decision dated July 8, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as the medical evidence 

was insufficient to establish a causal relationship between her diagnosed conditions and the 

May 9, 2015 employment incident. 

On July 30, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration and resubmitted medical and duty 

status reports (Form CA-17) dated May 9, 16, and 23, 2015 from Dr. Strawser. She also 
3 

resubmitted her May 9, 2015 traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) with an attached note, from an 

unidentified person, indicating that appellant felt a sharp pain as she walked down stairs. 

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

without a merit review. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of establishing the essential 

elements of 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 of FECA, that an injury4

 was sustained in the performance of duty, as alleged, 

and that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally 

related to the employment injury.5

 

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it must first be determined whether a “fact of injury” has been established. 

A fact of injury determination is based on two elements. First, the employee must submit 

sufficient evidence to establish that she actually experienced the employment incident at the 

time, place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit sufficient evidence, 

generally only in the form of medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused 

a personal injury. An employee may establish that the employment incident occurred as alleged 

but fail to show that her condition relates to the employment incident.6 

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. The opinion of the 

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, 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 employee.7

 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that her right 

leg conditions are causally related to a May 9, 2015 employment incident. 

 3 Supra note 1. 

4

 OWCP regulations define a traumatic injury as a condition of the body caused by a specific event or incident, or 

series of events or incidents, within a single workday or shift. Such condition must be caused by external force, 

including stress or strain, which is identifiable as to time and place of occurrence and member or function of the 

body affected. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 

5 See T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 
4 

The evidence supports that the May 9, 2015 employment incident, in which appellant 

went down steps while working, occurred as alleged. The issue is whether her diagnosed right 

leg conditions resulted from the May 9, 2015 employment incident. The Board finds that 

appellant failed to meet her burden of proof to establish a causal relationship between the 

diagnosed conditions and the employment incident. 

In his May 9, 16, and 23, 2015 reports, Dr. Strawser diagnosed sprain or strain of right 

knee and leg that began on May 9, 2015, and advised that appellant reported no prior similar 

problem. He noted that appellant had related her condition to walking her postal route as she felt 

a right ankle pain that gradually worsened. Dr. Strawser’s work status notes also indicated that 

appellant was seen that day “for an injury that could be compensable under workers’ 

compensation statutes.” On May 23, 2015 he opined that appellant’s condition was stable and he 

released her to full-duty work without restrictions. Although Dr. Strawser provides some 

support for causal relationship, he appears to be repeating the history provided by appellant 

without providing his own medical reasoning, or rationale, to explain the mechanism of how 

appellant’s right leg conditions were caused or aggravated by walking up and down stairs on 

May 9, 2015.8 He indicated that his opinion was based, in part, on temporal correlation. 

However, the Board has held that neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself 

during a period of employment nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or 

aggravated by employment factors or incidents is sufficient to establish a causal relationship.9 

Dr. Strawser’s work status notes provided only equivocal support for causal relationship, 

indicating that appellant’s condition could be compensable under workers’ compensation 

statutes.10 Consequently, the reports from Dr. Strawser are of limited probative value and 

insufficient to establish the claim. 

On appeal, appellant contends that her injury was not a preexisting injury or condition 

and occurred while performing her job duties, which required an excessive amount of walking 

and climbing stairs and hills. She argues that she had requested light-duty work while injured 

but was denied. The issue before the Board is medical in nature and appellant has not submitted 

sufficient medical evidence which explains why her diagnosed medical condition is causally 

related to the May 9, 2015 employment incident. 

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. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

Section 8128(a) of FECA does not entitle a claimant to a review of an OWCP decision as 

a matter of right; it vests OWCP with discretionary authority to determine whether it will review 

 8 See George Randolph Taylor, 6 ECAB 986, 988 (1954) (where the Board found that a medical opinion not fortified 

by medical rationale is of little probative value). 

9 E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 2010). 

10 See Leonard J. O’Keefe, 14 ECAB 42, 48 (1962) (where the Board held that medical opinions which are 

speculative or equivocal in character have little probative value). 
5 

an award for or against compensation.11 OWCP, through regulations, has imposed limitations on 

the exercise of its discretionary authority under section 8128(a).12 

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

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.13 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.14 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.15 

The Board has held that the submission of evidence or argument which repeats or 

duplicates evidence or argument already in the case record16 and the submission of evidence or 

argument which does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for 

reopening a case.17 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

The Board finds that OWCP properly refused to reopen appellant’s case for further 

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

Appellant did not attempt to demonstrate that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a 

point of law. Moreover, appellant did not advance a legal argument not previously considered 

by OWCP. 

In support of her July 30, 2015 reconsideration request, appellant resubmitted medical 

and duty status reports (Form CA-17) dated May 9, 16, and 23, 2015 from Dr. Strawser. She 

also resubmitted her CA-1 form. The Board finds that the resubmission of evidence is 

insufficient to warrant reopening appellant’s case for merit review. As the reports repeat 

evidence already in the case record, they are duplicative and do not constitute relevant and 

pertinent new evidence.18 With the resubmitted CA-1 form, appellant attached an undated note 

indicating that she felt a sharp pain as she walked down stairs. However, the underlying issue, 

 11 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. Under section 8128 of FECA, the Secretary of Labor may review an award for or 

against payment of compensation at any time on his own motion or on application. 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

12 See Annette Louise, 54 ECAB 783, 789-90 (2003). 

13 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). See A.L., Docket No. 08-1730 (issued March 16, 2009). 

14 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a). 

15 Id. at § 10.608(b). 

16 See A.L., supra note 13. See also Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984). 

17 Id. See also Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224, 225 (1979). 

18 See D.K., 59 ECAB 141 (2007). 
6 

causal relationship is medical in nature19 and there is no indication that the person who wrote the 

note is a physician as defined by FECA.20 Thus, this note is irrelevant to the medical issue in 

this case and is not a basis for reopening the claim.21

Because appellant failed to meet one of the standards enumerated under the regulations at 

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3), she was not entitled to further merit review of her claim. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that her right 

leg conditions are causally related to a May 9, 2015 employment incident. The Board further 

finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 12 and July 8, 2015 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: February 19, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 19 See Jennifer Atkerson, 55 ECAB 317 (2004). 

20 See 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). 

21 See Betty A. Butler, 56 ECAB 545 (2005) (evidence that does not address the particular issue involved does not 

constitute a basis for reopening a claim).