United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT, El Centro, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1674

Issued: December 1, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 1, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 14, 2017 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 over 

the merits of this case.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish left elbow and 

bilateral hand injuries causally related to factors of his federal employment.

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the issuance of OWCP’s June 14, 2017 decision, appellant submitted additional 

evidence to OWCP. The Board’s Rules of Procedure provide that its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the 

evidence that was before OWCP at the time it issued its final decision. Therefore, this additional evidence cannot be 

considered by the Board for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1).
2

On appeal appellant contends that he sustained work-related left elbow and bilateral hand 

injuries.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 11, 2017 appellant, then a 47-year-old deportation officer and contracting 

officer’s representative, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he hurt his 

left elbow and experienced extreme pain in both hands (possible carpal tunnel) due to his daily 

duties including the use of computers and a government-issued cellphone, responding to e-mails, 

handling contractual issues, and boxing up office supplies, furniture, and equipment for an office 

move to a new location. He stated that he first became aware of his conditions and their

relationship to his federal employment on February 13, 2017. Appellant did not submit any 

additional evidence. On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment 

indicated that appellant’s duties had not changed and he continued to work regardless of his 

discomfort.

By letter dated May 1, 2017, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of his claim 

and afforded him 30 days to submit additional evidence and respond to a factual development

questionnaire.

On May 19, 2017 appellant responded to OWCP’s development questionnaire. He 

indicated that he was examined on February 15, 2017 by Dr. Gregory R. Mack, an orthopedic 

hand surgeon, who explained to him that he had carpal tunnel syndrome, provided him with two 

wrist splints, and recommended an electromyogram (EMG). Appellant again claimed that his 

finger and hand symptoms were caused by his previously described work duties. He noted that 

he had extreme pain on the outer side of his elbow down to his forearm and wrist which were 

related to an old injury. Appellant claimed that he reinjured his elbow during the office move. 

He indicated that his diagnosis and medical treatment should be provided by his physician’s 

office. Appellant provided a detailed description of his work duties.

In a May 2, 2017 medical report, Dr. Ross M. Mandeville, a Board-certified neurologist, 

noted a history that appellant had an onset of progressive numbness and pain in his hands 10 

years ago. He advised that the results of an EMG/nerve conduction velocity (NCV) study of 

both wrists were abnormal. There was evidence of severe right and moderate left carpal tunnel 

syndrome.

In a decision dated June 14, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. 

It found that he failed to submit medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis in connection 

with the accepted employment factors. Thus, OWCP found that fact of injury was not 

established.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3has 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 

 

3

Supra note 1.
3

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.4 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.5

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) 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. 

The medical evidence 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 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.6

ANALYSIS

OWCP accepted as factual that appellant performed repetitive work duties as a 

deportation officer and contracting officer’s representative. The Board finds, however, that the 

medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish that appellant’s left elbow and bilateral 

hand conditions were caused or aggravated by the accepted work factors.

Dr. Mandeville’s May 2, 2017 EMG/NCV studies found evidence of severe right and 

moderate left carpal tunnel syndrome. He noted a history that appellant had an onset of 

progressive numbness and pain in both hands 10 years prior. This report is insufficient to 

discharge appellant’s burden of proof as it does not attribute appellant’s diagnosed conditions to 

factors of his federal employment. Although Dr. Mandeville noted the onset of appellant’s 

bilateral hand symptoms, he failed to relate appellant’s diagnosed condition to the established

employment factors.7

The Board finds that appellant has failed to submit rationalized probative medical 

evidence sufficient to establish that he sustained left elbow and bilateral hand injuries causally 

related to the accepted employment factors. Appellant, therefore, has not met his burden of 

proof.

 

4 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

5

S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

6

I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, id.

7

S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009) (medical evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding the 

cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship).
4

On appeal appellant contends that he sustained work-related left elbow and bilateral hand 

injuries. For the reasons set forth above, the Board finds that the weight of the medical evidence 

failed to establish left elbow and bilateral hand injuries causally related to the established

employment factors.

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.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof to establish left 

elbow and bilateral hand injuries causally related to factors of his federal employment.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 14, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 1, 2017

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board