United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

W.C., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CIVILIAN 

PERSONNEL ADVISORY CENTER, 

Fort Drum, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1800 

Issued: February 21, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

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 September 9, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 15, 

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. 

 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

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has established a traumatic injury causally related to an 

accepted work incident. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 14, 2014 appellant, then a 64-year-old telecommunications mechanic, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on October 3, 2014 he injured his neck, back, 

ribs, and left shoulder in the performance of duty. The form provided that he was “pulling a 

fiber optic cable through a conduit that was approx[imately] 1800 [feet] long. A flat rope rated 

at 6,000 [pounds] tensile strength was attached to the fiber cable to pull it through. The rope 

broke snagging his hand/arm and jerking/yanking violently.” 

In a report dated October 27, 2014, Dr. Daniel G. DiChristina, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, obtained a history of appellant injuring his cervical spine at work on 

October 3, 2014 when he “noted [a] significant amount of tension across his left arm resulting in 

a point sensation to his left arm and to his cervical spine.”3

 Appellant had a history of a left 

rotator cuff repair. On examination, Dr. DiChristina found a positive impingement sign on the 

left and pain on palpation of the trapezius. He diagnosed cervical sprain/strain, underlying 

degenerative disease, and left shoulder sprain/strain following a prior rotator cuff repair. 

Dr. DiChristina interpreted x-rays of the cervical spine, obtained on October 27, 2014, as 

showing degenerative disc disease from C3-C7 and x-rays of the left shoulder as showing mild 

degenerative disc disease and the site of the distal clavicle excision. In a disability certificate, he 

opined that appellant was unable to work until November 27, 2014. 

On November 25, 2014 Dr. DiChristina evaluated appellant for left shoulder and neck 

pain. He diagnosed osteoarthritis of the cervical spine and a lesion of the superior glenoid 

labrum. Dr. DiChristina opined that the “incident [he] described is the competent medical cause 

of this injury/illness” and that his complaints were also consistent with the examination findings 

and history of injury. He found that appellant was temporarily totally disabled and 

recommended magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the cervical spine and left shoulder. 

OWCP, by letter dated December 5, 2014, advised appellant that it had originally paid a 

limited amount of medical expenses as his claim appeared minor and was uncontroverted. It was 

now formally adjudicating his claim. OWCP requested that appellant submit additional factual 

and medical information, including a detailed report from his attending physician addressing the 

causal relationship between any diagnosed condition and the identified work incident. 

By decision dated January 12, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed condition causally related to the 

October 3, 2014 work incident. It found that he had failed to submit medical evidence 

 3

 On November 4, 2014 appellant submitted the first page of an authorization for examination and/or treatment 

(Form CA-16). The form provided a history of appellant sustaining an injury after string breaking while pulling 

fiber optic cable. 
3

explaining how the October 3, 2014 employment incident caused either osteoarthritis of the 

cervical spine, a superior glenoid labrum lesion, or rotator cuff syndrome. 

In a statement dated December 13, 2014, received by OWCP on January 12, 2015, 

appellant described the October 3, 2014 work incident.4

 He noted that a line extending from a 

motor vehicle was pulling mule tape with tensile strength of around 2,000 pounds. Appellant 

advised that the line snapped and caught his hand jerking him backwards and spinning him 

around. He did not have a prior neck injury but had a shoulder repair in 2013. Appellant’s 

supervisor drove him to seek medical treatment. He submitted witness statements corroborating 

the occurrence of the October 3, 2014 employment incident. 

Dr. DiChristina, in a progress report dated March 27, 2015, noted that workers’ 

compensation had denied appellant’s claim. He related that appellant had “suffered an injury to 

his neck and left shoulder on the date of October 3, 2014 when a line jerked through his hand and 

pulled his left shoulder into significant extension and twisted his cervical spine.” Dr. DiChristina 

provided examination findings and diagnosed cervical sprain/strain with underlying degenerative 

disc disease and left shoulder sprain causing rotator cuff tendinitis. He related, “[Appellant] is 

advised that in my opinion, the injury he sustained on the job on October 3, 2014 is the cause of 

the result and pathology exhibits of the cervical spine and his left shoulder” and should be 

covered by workers’ compensation. Dr. DiChristina found that he could work but had continued 

impairment of the spine and left shoulder. On April 27, 2015 he advised that appellant was 

disabled from work indefinitely. 

Appellant, on May 12, 2015, requested reconsideration. He submitted an undated 

authorization for examination and/or treatment (Form CA-16). The form provided a history of a 

string breaking, causing appellant to fall awkwardly on October 3, 2014. Dr. Thaddeus M. 

Pajak, an osteopath, obtained a history of a whiplash injury from a cord under tensile strength. 

He diagnosed brachial plexitis and checked a box marked “yes” that the condition was caused or 

aggravated by the described employment activity. Dr. Pajak determined that appellant could 

perform modified work. 

By decision dated July 14, 2015, OWCP denied modification of its January 12, 2015 

decision. It found that appellant had not provided a reasoned opinion regarding how the 

accepted work incident caused or aggravated the diagnosed conditions. 

In a report dated July 27, 2015, Dr. DiChristina evaluated appellant for occasional left 

shoulder pain and mild neck pain. He diagnosed cervical sprain, osteoarthritis of the cervical 

spine, and rotator cuff syndrome. Dr. DiChristina related that the incident appellant described 

caused the injury. On August 6, 2015 he found that appellant could resume modified 

employment. 

On January 26, 2016 counsel again requested reconsideration. 

 4

 An October 6, 2014 clinic note from the employing establishment indicated that appellant was unable to work 

pending evaluation. 
4

In a decision dated April 25, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

as he failed to raise an argument or submitted evidence sufficient to warrant reopening his case 

for further review of the merits under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

On May 2, 2016 appellant, through counsel, again requested reconsideration. He 

submitted an operative report indicating that on February 17, 2015 Dr. John B. Savage, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, performed a rotator cuff repair. 

Dr. Savage on a March 2, 2016 return to work form noted that appellant sustained an 

injury at work in October 2014 and found that he was totally disabled from work. 

In a decision dated July 15, 2016, OWCP denied modification of its April 25, 2016 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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.5 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.6

To determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of 

duty, OWCP must determine whether “fact of injury” is established. First, an employee has the 

burden of demonstrating the occurrence of an injury at the time, place, and in the manner 

alleged, by a preponderance of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence.7 Second, the 

employee must submit sufficient evidence, generally only in the form of medical evidence, to 

establish a causal relationship between the employment incident and the alleged disability and/or 

condition for which compensation is claimed.8 An employee may establish that the employment 

incident occurred as alleged, but fail to show that his or her disability and/or condition relates to 

the employment incident.9

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that he injured his neck, back, ribs, and left shoulder on October 3, 

2014 when a rope pulling a fiber optic cable broke, yanking back his hand and arm. He has 

 5 Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005); Anthony P. Silva, 55 ECAB 179 (2003). 

6 See Elizabeth H. Kramm (Leonard O. Kramm), 57 ECAB 117 (2005); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 

7 David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); Delphyne L. Glover, 51 ECAB 146 (1999). 

8 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997). 

9 Id.
5

established that the employment incident occurred at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. 

The issue, consequently, is whether the medical evidence establishes that he sustained an injury 

as a result of this incident. 

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish that the 

October 3, 2014 work incident resulted in an injury. The determination of whether an 

employment incident caused an injury is generally established by medical evidence.10

In a March 27, 2015 report, Dr. DiChristina provided a history of appellant sustaining a 

left shoulder and neck injury on October 3, 2014 when a line jerked though his hand, pulling his 

left shoulder, and twisting his neck. He diagnosed cervical sprain/strain with underlying 

degenerative disc disease and left shoulder sprain causing rotator cuff tendinitis. Dr. DiChristina 

attributed the diagnosed conditions to the October 3, 2014 employment incident. On July 27, 

2015 he diagnosed cervical sprain, cervical osteoarthritis, and rotator cuff syndrome. He opined 

that the work incident related by appellant caused the injury and was consistent with the findings 

on examination. Dr. DiChristina did not, however, support his causation finding with medical 

rationale explaining how the accepted work incident caused or aggravated the diagnosed 

conditions. Medical reports without rationale on causal relationship are of diminished probative 

value and do not meet an employee’s burden of proof.11

On October 27, 2014 Dr. DiChristina discussed appellant’s history of an injury to his 

neck on October 3, 2014 when he experienced tension in his left arm. He reported findings and 

diagnosed cervical strain, underlying degenerative disc disease, and left shoulder sprain/strain 

after a previous rotator cuff repair. Dr. DiChristina on November 25, 2014 discussed appellant’s 

continued complaints of neck and left shoulder pain. He diagnosed cervical osteoarthritis and a 

superior glenoid labrum lesion. Dr. DiChristina opined that appellant was disabled from 

employment. However, he did not provide a full description of the October 3, 2014 work 

incident or specifically attribute a diagnosed condition to the incident. Medical evidence that 

does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of diminished 

probative value on the issue of causal relationship.12 

In a form report dated October 3, 2014, Dr. Pajak noted that appellant experienced a 

whiplash injury from a cord under tensile strength. He diagnosed brachial plexitis and indicated 

by checkmark that the condition resulted from the identified work factor. Dr. Pajak found that 

appellant could work with restrictions. When a physician’s opinion on causal relationship 

consists only of checking “yes” to a form question without providing medical rationale 

explaining how the work condition caused the alleged injury, it is of little probative value and 

insufficient to establish causal relationship.13

 10 See Lois E. Culver (Clair L. Culver), 53 ECAB 412 (2002). 

11 See D.S., Docket No. 15-0821 (issued July 2, 2015); Calvin E. King, Jr., 51 ECAB 394 (2000). 

12 See S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009); Conard Hightower, 54 ECAB 796 (2003). 

13 See H.H., Docket No. 16-0897 (issued September 21, 2016); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001). 
6

On February 17, 2015 Dr. Savage performed a rotator cuff repair. In a progress report 

dated March 2, 2016, he indicated on a disability form that appellant sustained an injury on 

October 6, 2014 at work and was disabled from employment. Dr. Savage did not describe the 

history of injury, provide a diagnosis, or support his findings with rationale. In the absence of 

rationale, his opinion is of diminished probative value.14

The Board finds, for the reasons set forth above, that appellant failed to meet his burden 

of proof.15

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 and 

20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established a traumatic injury causally related to 

an accepted October 3, 2014 work incident. 

 14 See E.G., Docket No. 16-0242 (issued October 14, 2016). 

15 Where, as in this case, an employing establishment properly executes a Form CA-16, which authorizes medical 

treatment as a result of an employee’s claim for an employment-related injury, the Form CA-16 creates a contractual 

obligation, which does not involve the employee directly, to pay for the cost of the examination or treatment 

regardless of the action taken on the claim. See Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003). The period for which 

treatment is authorized by a Form CA-16 is limited to 60 days from the date of issuance, unless terminated earlier by 

OWCP. See 20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c). 
7

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 15, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 21, 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