United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Las Vegas, NV, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1518 

Issued: May 5, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Lonnie Boylan, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 19, 2016 appellant, through his representative, filed a timely appeal from a 

June 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.3

 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. 

3

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP after it issued the June 15, 2016 

decision. The Board’s jurisdiction however is limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time 

of its final decision. Therefore, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review this additional evidence. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1). 
2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish left shoulder, thoracic, 

and cervical conditions causally related to a September 6, 2012 employment incident. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has been previously before the Board.4

 The facts and circumstances outlined in 

the prior Board decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as follows. 

Appellant, a 27-year-old mail processing clerk, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form 

CA-1), alleging that he injured his left shoulder, thoracic spine, and cervical spine on 

September 6, 2012 as a result of lifting parcels into designated locations. In a decision dated 

April 16, 2015, the Board affirmed OWCP’s August 29, 2014 decision denying appellant’s 

claim. The Board found that appellant had not met his burden of proof to establish left shoulder, 

thoracic, or cervical conditions causally related to the September 6, 2012 employment incident. 

The facts and circumstances outlined in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by 

reference. 

Following the Board’s decision, on April 13, 2016 appellant’s representative requested 

reconsideration and submitted reports dated January 24, 2015 through March 2, 2016 from 

Dr. William E. Bragg, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Bragg diagnosed left shoulder anterior labral 

tear, impingement, and biceps tendinitis and performed a left shoulder arthroscopy, anterior 

labral repair, subacromial decompression (SAD)/acromioplasty, and debridement on 

July 31, 2015. He subsequently performed a left shoulder debridement, labral repair, 

subacromial decompression, and open biceps tenodesis on January 21, 2016. In a February 24, 

2015 report, Dr. Bragg asserted that appellant injured his left shoulder while he was working for 

the employing establishment lifting parcels. Appellant described the pain as intermittent and 

worsening, sharp and stabbing in his arm, and increased with standing, lifting, exercise, and 

twisting. He noted that he was terminated from his job as a result of this pain and injury. 

Dr. Bragg opined that appellant’s examination and history were consistent with a labral tear 

which was caused by lifting parcels at work. 

A February 24, 2015 x-ray of the left shoulder demonstrated no evidence of acute 

fracture or dislocation. 

A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan dated November 3, 2015 revealed no 

evidence of labral tear, edema in the dorsal lateral acromion, and no evidence of rotator cuff tear. 

On September 2, 2015 Dr. Bragg reiterated his opinion that appellant’s left shoulder 

condition was consistent with the reported injury sustained at work from lifting mail parcels and 

pitching them for work. He explained that given the weight of the parcels, approximately 40 to 

70 pounds, this motion “certainly could result in injury to [appellant’s] shoulder consistent with 

his injury.” Dr. Bragg opined that appellant’s labral injuries were visible upon MRI scan 

although the radiologist did not note these findings. 

 4

 Docket No. 15-256 (issued April 16, 2015). 
3

In an April 1, 2016 report, Dr. John Champlin, a Board-certified family practitioner, 

opined that lifting and pitching postal parcels at work on September 6, 2012 caused or 

aggravated appellant’s condition. He admitted to being somewhat perplexed by OWCP’s failure 

to understand the relationship between “lifting and throwing heavy objects and sustaining a 

cervical fracture caused by compression of the bony spine due to the muscular activity around 

the shoulder girdle and neck involved in the physical activity of lifting and throwing heavy 

objects.” Dr. Champlin opined that there was clear evidence outlining appellant’s shoulder 

injury as he developed pain in the shoulder while lifting and throwing up to 70-pound parcels in 

the performance of duty on September 6, 2012. He asserted that both he and Dr. Bragg had 

diagnosed labral tear for which appellant underwent surgical repairs on July 31, 2015 and 

January 21, 2016. Dr. Champlin explained that shoulder joints are uniquely susceptible to this 

type of injury while involved in activities such as lifting and pitching of objects, which causes 

undue stress on the narrowed edge of the shallow cup that is the labrum of the shoulder. When 

stressors exceed the ability of the labrum to withstand them, labrum tears occur. Dr. Champlin 

noted that labrum tears were chronically painful conditions. He opined that given the medical 

evidence and lack of any evidence of any other preexisting condition or injury, there was a clear 

causal relationship between the physical activities involved in sorting heavy objects, and lifting 

and throwing them, and development of both appellant’s compression fracture of the cervical 

spine and the labral tear. Dr. Champlin reported that appellant continued to suffer from shoulder 

and neck pain and experienced limitations in his physical activities. 

By decision dated June 15, 2016, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision 

because the medical evidence submitted was insufficient to establish causal relationship between 

appellant’s claimed conditions and the September 6, 2012 employment incident. 

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 timely filed within the 

applicable time limitation period of FECA, that an injury5

 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.6

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

performance of duty, it must first be determined whether “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 he 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. 

 5

 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). 

6 See T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). 
4

An employee may establish that the employment incident occurred as alleged, but fail to show 

that his or her condition relates to the employment incident.7

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.8

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that the employment incident of September 6, 2012 occurred at the time, 

place, and in the manner alleged. The issue is whether appellant’s left shoulder, thoracic, and 

cervical conditions resulted from the September 6, 2012 employment incident. The Board finds 

that appellant failed to meet his burden of proof to establish a causal relationship. 

Dr. Bragg diagnosed left shoulder anterior labral tear, impingement, and biceps tendinitis 

and performed left shoulder surgeries on July 31, 2015 and January 21, 2016. In a February 24, 

2015 report, he asserted that appellant injured his left shoulder while he was working for the 

employing establishment lifting parcels. Dr. Bragg opined that appellant’s examination and 

history were consistent with a labral tear which was caused by lifting parcels at work. On 

September 2, 2015 he reiterated his opinion that appellant’s left shoulder injury was consistent 

with the reported injury sustained at work from lifting mail parcels and pitching them for work. 

Dr. Bragg explained that given the weight of the parcels, approximately 40 to 70 pounds, this 

motion “certainly could result in injury to [appellant’s] shoulder consistent with his injury.” He 

noted that appellant’s conditions occurred while he was at work, but, as noted above, such 

generalized statements do not establish causal relationship.9

 Dr. Bragg did not provide sufficient 

medical rationale explaining how appellant’s left shoulder conditions were caused or aggravated 

by lifting and pitching parcels at work on September 6, 2012. For these reasons, the Board finds 

that the reports from Dr. Bragg are insufficient to establish a left shoulder condition causally 

related to the September 6, 2012 work incident. 

In his April 1, 2016 report, Dr. Champlin opined that lifting and pitching postal parcel at 

work on September 6, 2012 caused or aggravated appellant’s left shoulder labral tear. He 

admitted to being somewhat perplexed by OWCP’s failure to understand the relationship 

between “lifting and throwing heavy objects and sustaining a cervical fracture caused by 

compression of the bony spine due to the muscular activity around the shoulder girdle and neck 

involved in the physical activity of lifting and throwing heavy objects.” Dr. Champlin opined 

that there was clear evidence outlining appellant’s shoulder injury as he developed pain in the 

shoulder while involved in lifting and throwing up to 70-pound parcels on September 6, 2012. 

 7 Id.

8 Id.

9 See K.W., Docket No. 10-98 (issued September 10, 2010). 
5

He explained that shoulder joints are uniquely susceptible to this type of injury while involved in 

activities such as lifting and pitching of objects, which causes undue stress on the narrowed edge 

of the shallow cup that is the labrum of the shoulder. When the stressors exceed the ability of the 

labrum to withstand them, labrum tears occur. Dr. Champlin opined that given the medical 

evidence and lack of any evidence of any other preexisting condition or injury, there was a clear 

causal relationship between the physical activities involved in sorting heavy objects, and lifting 

and throwing them, and development of both appellant’s compression fracture of the cervical 

spine and the labral tear. He reported that appellant continued to suffer from shoulder and neck 

pain and experienced limitations in his physical activities. 

The Board finds that Dr. Champlin failed to provide sufficient medical rationale 

explaining the mechanism of how lifting and pitching parcels at work on September 6, 2012 

caused appellant’s left shoulder condition. Dr. Champlin noted that the condition occurred while 

appellant was at work, but such generalized statements do not establish causal relationship 

because they merely repeat appellant’s allegations and are unsupported by adequate medical 

rationale explaining how his physical activity at work actually caused or aggravated the 

diagnosed condition.10 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.11 Dr. Champlin 

did not otherwise sufficiently explain why diagnostic testing and examination findings led him to 

conclude that the September 6, 2012 incident at work caused or contributed to the diagnosed 

condition. Thus, the Board finds that his April 1, 2016 report is insufficient to establish that 

appellant sustained an employment-related injury. 

Other medical evidence of record, including diagnostic test reports, is of limited 

probative value and insufficient to establish the claim as this evidence does not specifically 

address whether appellant’s diagnosed conditions are causally related to the September 6, 2012 

work incident.12 

Appellant’s representative contends that the record does not contain a medical opinion 

contrary to the claim and OWCP did not seek advice from one of its medical advisers or refer the 

case for a second opinion evaluation. He argues that the totality of the medical evidence of 

record constitutes substantial, uncontradicted evidence in support of appellant’s claim and raises 

an uncontroverted inference of causal relationship between the federal work incident and the 

claimed medical conditions. As noted above, appellant bears the burden of proof to establish an 

employment-related injury and he may establish that the employment incident occurred as 

alleged but fail to show that his condition relates to the employment incident.13 As appellant has 

 10 See id. 

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

12 See K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); Linda I. Sprague, 48 ECAB 386 (1997) (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). 

13 See supra notes 5 and 6. 
6

not submitted any rationalized medical evidence to support his allegation that he sustained an 

injury causally related to the September 6, 2012 employment incident, he has failed to meet his 

burden of proof to establish a claim for compensation. 

CONCLUSION 

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

shoulder, thoracic, and cervical conditions are causally related to the September 6, 2012 

employment incident. 

ORDER 

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 5, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board