United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.O., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OFFICE OF 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, 

Chicago, IL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0443 

Issued: May 24, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On December 20, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 27, 2016 merit 

decision and September 14, 2016 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 has met her burden of proof to establish bilateral 

hand, finger, and arm conditions causally related to factors of her federal employment; and 

(2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for further merit review of her claim 

under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 Appellant submitted additional evidence with her appeal. The Board’s 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. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

On appeal, appellant contends that a physician’s medical report she submitted in support 

of her request for reconsideration was not duplicative. She maintains that the physician used the 

same date for the report as his previously submitted report, but provided a different opinion on 

causal relationship. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 20, 2016 appellant, then a 56-year-old workers’ compensation claims examiner, 

filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that on June 2, 2016 she first became 

aware of her bilateral hand and right arm conditions and first realized that her conditions were 

caused by her federal employment. She claimed that the left little and middle fingers, and left 

thumb locked while typing at work and that a cyst had formed on the top of her left fourth finger. 

Appellant also noted problems with her right arm and hand. 

By letter dated June 22, 2016, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of her claim 

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

On July 19, 2016 appellant responded to OWCP’s development questionnaire. She 

indicated that she worked as a claims examiner for almost 18 years at the employing 

establishment and, over the years, she experienced problems with her hands due to performing 

repetitive motion activities which included typing more than eight hours a day, writing, and 

pushing and lifting case files. Appellant noted that, for the past year, the work volume was 

unusual and excessive for each examiner compared to previous years which caused her to 

excessively use her hands on a regular basis. She experienced sharp pain, cramping, and locking 

of both hands and forearms. Appellant ignored her symptoms and continued to work until her 

fingers locked while typing a decision. She related that her symptoms had existed for a few 

years, but had recently worsened. Appellant sought medical attention for her symptoms. She 

maintained that she had no prior left hand injury and her only activity outside of work was 

making crafts maybe once a year during winter months. 

In a July 20, 2016 report, Dr. Michael G. Ward, an attending Board-certified family 

practitioner, noted that appellant had been under his care for many years. He saw her on July 12, 

2016 when she complained of sharp shooting pain and paresthesias of her hands and fingers 

radiating to her forearms and the locking of her thumbs and third and fifth fingers for the past 

month. Dr. Ward noted appellant’s initial treatment. He further noted that she described her 

work duties, which included manual typing and writing, and believed that her recent workload 

had increased significantly which contributed to her symptoms. Dr. Ward provided results on 

examination and diagnosed bilateral de Quervain’s tenosynovitis and right third and fifth trigger 

fingers. He advised that these conditions could occur with the described work duties. 

In a July 27, 2016 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. It 

found that Dr. Ward’s July 20, 2016 report failed to provide a rationalized medical opinion 

sufficient to establish causal relationship between her diagnosed hands and right finger 

conditions and the established factors of employment. 

OWCP received a duplicate copy of Dr. Ward’s July 20, 2016 report. 
3

On September 6, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration. 

By decision dated September 14, 2016, OWCP denied further merit review of appellant’s 

claim. It found that her request for reconsideration neither raised substantive legal questions, nor 

included new and relevant evidence. 

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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation, that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any 

disability and/or specific condition 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 on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.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) 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 a 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.5

 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

OWCP accepted as factual that appellant performed the work duties of a workers’ 

compensation claims examiner, which involved typing, writing, and pushing and lifting case 

files. The Board finds, however, that the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish 

bilateral hand, finger, and arm conditions caused or aggravated by the accepted work factors. 

Dr. Ward’s July 20, 2016 report noted appellant’s description of her accepted work 

factors. He examined her and diagnosed bilateral de Quervain’s tenosynovitis and right third and 

fifth trigger fingers. Dr. Ward maintained that the diagnosed conditions could occur with the 

work duties as described by appellant. However, he did not provide a probative, rationalized 

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

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

5 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, id. 
4

opinion regarding whether the accepted work factors caused a personal injury.6

 Dr. Ward did not 

sufficiently explain the reasons why, medically, appellant would have sustained bilateral hand 

and right finger injuries due to typing, writing, and pushing and lifting case files at work. 

Furthermore, his opinion is not expressed to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, but rather 

is speculative in nature, and therefore cannot establish causal relationship.7

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

sufficient to establish that she sustained bilateral hands, fingers, and arms injuries causally 

related to the established employment factors. Appellant, therefore, did not meet her burden of 

proof. 

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 of FECA vests OWCP with a discretionary authority to determine whether 

it will review an award for or against compensation, either under its own authority or on 

application by a claimant.8 Section 10.608(b) of OWCP’s regulations provide that a timely 

request for reconsideration may be granted if OWCP determines that the claimant has presented 

evidence and/or argument that meet at least one of the standards described in section 

10.606(b)(3).9 This section provides that the application for reconsideration must be submitted 

in writing and set forth arguments and contain evidence that either: (1) shows that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advances a relevant legal argument 

not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not 

previously considered by OWCP.10 Section 10.608(b) provides that when a request for 

reconsideration is timely, but fails to meet at least one of these three requirements, OWCP will 

deny the application for reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on the merits.11

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for further merit review 

of her occupational disease claim. In support of her September 1, 2016 request for 

 6 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). 

7 Ricky S. Storms, 52 ECAB 349 (2001) (while the opinion of a physician supporting causal relationship need not 

be one of absolute medical certainty, the opinion must not be speculative or equivocal. The opinion should be 

expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty). 

8

 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

9

 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(a). 

10 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3). 

11 Id. at § 10.608(b). 
5

reconsideration, appellant resubmitted the previously reviewed July 20, 2016 report from 

Dr. Ward. 

In its September 14, 2016 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s request for further merit 

review, finding that her request did not raise any substantive legal questions or include new and 

relevant evidence. As appellant provided no argument suggesting that OWCP had erroneously 

applied or interrupted a specific point of law, advanced no new legal argument, or provided 

relevant or pertinent new evidence, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied a merit review 

under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to meet her burden of proof to establish bilateral 

hand, finger, and arm conditions causally related to factors of her federal employment. The 

Board further finds, that OWCP properly refused to reopen her case for further merit review of 

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

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 14 and July 27, 2016 decisions of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: May 24, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board