United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.W., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Pueblo, CO, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0727 

Issued: June 7, 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 March 1, 2016 appellant timely appealed the January 21, 2016 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 appellant’s claim.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant sustained injury to his lower extremity causally related to 

factors of his federal employment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193 (2006). 

2

 The record on appeal contains evidence received after OWCP issued its January 21, 2016 decision. However, 

the Board is precluded from considering evidence that was not in the case record at the time OWCP issued its final 

decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1) (2014). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

Appellant, a 45-year-old retired city carrier, filed an occupational disease claim (Form 

CA-2) on November 4, 2015 alleging that he injured his leg in December 2006 performing his 

duties as a letter carrier. He alleged that he needed surgery and was subsequently forced to 

retire. The employing establishment represented that appellant was currently retired, but did not 

identify the effective date of his retirement. The claim also included an October 27, 2007 

postal service Form 50 that identified him as a full-time city carrier. 

On November 24, 2015 OWCP acknowledged receipt of appellant’s claim and explained 

that the evidence received to date was insufficient. Specifically, it noted that he had yet to 

submit any medical evidence with a diagnosis linked to his employment activities. OWCP also 

noted that appellant had not submitted any factual information regarding specific employment 

duties that allegedly contributed to his claimed leg condition. It afforded him at least 30 days to 

submit the required factual and medical evidence in support of his claimed injury. 

OWCP subsequently received a January 21, 2010 right knee x-ray report. The radiologist 

noted a history of a previous surgery and current findings that could represent postoperative 

periosteal new bone formation in the area of the medial femoral condyle.3 

The record also included a February 9, 2010 report from Concentra, which referenced 

appellant’s knee surgery and a gait problem. The content of the report and the identity of the 

author are largely indecipherable. 

OWCP also received a November 12, 2015 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) 

from Dr. Alex Constantinides, a family practitioner. Dr. Constantinides diagnosed status post 

July 2007 total knee arthroplasty.4 He reported a 2006 injury, which appellant described as a 

gradual onset of pain while walking normal routes. Dr. Constantinides explained that appellant 

had not been his patient in 2006, and it was not until 2014 that he began providing primary care 

follow-up treatment. He noted having seen appellant on four occasions between January 9 and 

June 22, 2015. Dr. Constantinides also noted that appellant had suffered a traumatic brain injury 

and multiple orthopedic injuries in 2007 and 2009, but these injuries reportedly postdated 

appellant’s symptoms of knee pain. 

On November 23, 2015 the employing establishment challenged appellant’s claim due to 

a preexisting condition that was unrelated to his employment. 

Appellant’s employing establishment also provided OWCP a copy of a February 14, 

2005 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs, which found a 10 percent rating 

for service-connected tinnitus, but found that his right knee condition and bilateral hearing loss 

were not service connected. 

 3

 Dr. John C. Lemon, a Board-certified radiologist with a subspecialty in nuclear radiology, interpreted 

appellant’s January 21, 2010 x-ray. 

4

 Dr. Constantinides did not specify whether the arthroplasty involved the left or right knee. 
3

OWCP also received a position description for city carrier, as well as a job 

analysis/essential functions report that described a letter carrier’s delivery and casing duties. 

Mike Hurley, appellant’s former supervisor through March 2008, provided an undated 

statement describing appellant’s duties on route 310. He noted that appellant’s delivery duties 

consisted of about 45 minutes standing at a neighborhood box unit, and about five and onequarter hours walking on a park and loop. Mr. Hurley also noted that appellant was required to 

case mail for about two hours while standing and that appellant frequently worked overtime 

carrying for another route. He recalled that appellant had issues with his knee, but did not recall 

the extent. Mr. Hurley also indicated that he did not believe appellant filed a CA-2 form at the 

time. 

By decision dated January 21, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim as he had not established fact of injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

A claimant seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the essential 

elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, 

including that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that any specific 

condition or disability claimed is causally related to the employment injury.5

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty, a claimant must 

submit: (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 diagnosed condition is causally related to the 

identified employment factors.6

ANALYSIS 

Appellant claimed that his employment duties as a mail carrier caused leg pain while 

doing his route. He indicated that he previously had surgery and was forced to retire. However, 

appellant did not identify a specific condition or diagnosis and fail to specifically identify which 

leg was allegedly injured or the type of surgery he had undergone. Moreover, he did not identify 

any specific employment duties that allegedly caused or contributed to his claimed leg injury. In 

 5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996). Causal relationship is a 

medical question, which generally requires rationalized medical opinion evidence to resolve the issue. See 

Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996). A physician’s opinion on whether there is a causal relationship between 

the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background. Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989). Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be 

expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale, 

explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s specific employment 

factors. Id. 

6 Victor J. Woodhams, id. 
4

denying appellant’s occupational disease claim, OWCP found that he failed to establish both a 

factual and medical basis for his claimed lower extremity condition. 

As noted, OWCP requested additional information from appellant on 

November 24, 2015. However, it did not receive a factual statement from him within the 30-day 

allotted period. The record includes a city carrier position description, as well as a statement 

from Mr. Hurley, his supervisor, describing appellant’s duties during the time he supervised 

appellant, but what was missing at the time was a detailed statement from appellant identifying 

particular employment factors that allegedly caused or contributed to his claimed leg condition. 

In his November 12, 2015 report, Dr. Constantinides noted that appellant described a 

gradual onset of pain while walking normal routes. He diagnosed status post July 2007 total 

knee arthroplasty. However, Dr. Constantinides did not specify which knee was involved and he 

did not offer an opinion on whether appellant’s current condition was employment related. The 

only other medical evidence submitted prior to the January 21, 2016 decision was a January 21, 

2010 right knee x-ray, which noted a history of previous operation and findings that “could” 

represent postoperative periosteal new bone formation. Dr. Lemon indicated that previous 

trauma, surgery, and/or infection could account for the reported findings. He did not specify 

whether the findings were employment related. 

Appellant failed to identify specific employment factors that he believed caused or 

contributed to his claimed leg condition. By itself, his explanation that he “was having leg pain 

while doing [his] route” will not suffice. Additionally, appellant failed to submit medical 

evidence establishing an employment-related diagnosis. The above-noted medical evidence does 

not establish that his total knee arthroplasty and right knee postoperative periosteal new bone 

formation are employment related. Accordingly, OWCP properly denied appellant’s 

occupational disease claim. 

CONCLUSION 

Appellant failed to establish an injury to his lower extremity causally related to factors of 

his federal employment. 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 21, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 7, 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