United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.Y., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. MARSHALS 

SERVICE, Charlotte, NC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0702

Issued: November 21, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel F. Read, 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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 14, 2018 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a

December 20, 2017 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 met her burden of proof to establish a left knee condition 

causally related to the accepted December 21, 2015 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 31, 2015 appellant, then a 46-year-old Deputy U.S. Marshal, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 21, 2015 she injured both knees 

when she stepped off a curb while walking during an operational mission. She indicated that,

during evening hours with limited visibility, she stepped off a small curb and turned both her left 

and right knees as she tried to catch herself from falling. Appellant did not stop work. 

With her claim, appellant submitted medical reports from Dr. Ian D. Archibald, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon. In his May 16, 2016 report, Dr. Archibald noted that she originally 

injured her left knee in January 2013 and underwent left knee arthroscopy in May 2013 for a 

medial meniscus tear and full-thickness chondral lesion in the medial femoral condyle. Appellant

was able to return to her work as a federal agent, but always had some persistent knee pain. 

Dr. Archibald indicated that she had not been seen in over 15 months and was seen for complaints 

of increased left knee pain.

3

 He noted that, on December 21, 2015, while appellant was on a work 

assignment, she had stepped off a curb and twisted her knee with loud pops and catches in her 

knee. Dr. Archibald also noted that, in March 2016, she had misstepped while on a nonworkrelated hiking trip and also experienced loud pops in her knee. He indicated that appellant’s 

symptoms were gradually increasing and that the x-rays showed bone-on-bone changes in the 

medial joint compartment and a lytic lesion in the subchondral bone of the medial femoral condyle 

consistent with previous full-thickness articular cartilage loss area. Dr. Archibald diagnosed 

primary osteoarthritis of the left knee and indicated that she could continue her regular-duty work. 

In a June 13, 2016 progress note, he diagnosed moderate-to-severe primary osteoarthritis of the 

left knee, which represented an aggravation of a preexisting condition. In a June 22, 2016 progress 

note, Dr. Archibald diagnosed “work-related injury to the left knee. [Appellant] has osteoarthritis 

of the medial joint compartment of the left knee.” He advised that appellant could continue her 

work without restrictions.

By development letter dated June 29, 2016, OWCP requested additional factual and 

medical evidence in support of appellant’s claim. It provided a questionnaire for her completion

regarding the factual circumstances of her claim and afforded her 30 days to provide the requested 

information. 

By decision dated August 5, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim. It 

found that the medical evidence submitted was insufficient to establish causal relationship between 

the diagnosed left knee osteoarthritis condition and the accepted December 21, 2015 employment 

incident. OWCP also noted that it had not received clarification of appellant’s hiking incident that 

took place in March 2016 as referenced by Dr. Archibald. 

 

3 The remainder of Dr. Archibald’s reports note that he evaluated appellant in January 2015.
3

On October 8, 2016 appellant, through then counsel, requested reconsideration. Counsel 

contended that the medical evidence of record was sufficient to meet her burden of proof. 

In an August 10, 2016 report, Dr. Archibald discussed appellant’s prior medical history, 

including left knee arthroscopy for a microfracture and chondral lesion. He noted that her

condition was stable at that time, although additional surgery had been recommended. 

Dr. Archibald indicated that appellant had a twisting injury to her knee while on assignment on 

December 21, 2015 which resulted in a loud pop. He indicated that her May 16, 2016 evaluation 

showed significant deterioration to the function in her left knee. Dr. Archibald noted that

“[appellant] alleges that the injury of December 2015 materially aggravated her condition resulting 

in her treatment evaluation of May and June 2016.” 

In his October 3, 2016 report, Dr. Archibald opined that the December 21, 2015 work 

injury permanently aggravated appellant’s preexisting left knee osteoarthritis. He acknowledged 

that, while there had been another episode while she was doing some limited hiking, he “[did] not 

believe that that was the injury that caused the most difficulty.” Dr. Archibald also indicated that,

while he had recommended additional surgeries in January 2015, appellant had been functioning 

well in her federal agent position and that she did not feel surgery was necessary until she sustained 

the December 21, 2015 injury. He concluded that her condition was permanently aggravated and 

she now required more extensive surgery to her left knee. 

By decision dated December 12, 2016, OWCP denied modification of its August 5, 2016 

decision. It found that, given the severity of the underlying condition, the delay in seeking 

treatment for almost five months, and the subsequent intervening hiking injury, it was not clear 

that the December 21, 2015 incident was competent to cause the deterioration in appellant’s left 

knee. OWCP further found that, while each injury may have resulted in a temporary episode of 

pain, no objective evidence had been cited to explain how the December 21, 2015 work injury 

resulted in a permanent aggravation of the underlying osteoarthritis condition. 

On October 12, 2017 appellant, through her then counsel, requested reconsideration. 

Counsel argued that the medical evidence of record was sufficient to meet her burden of proof. 

In an undated statement, appellant indicated that after her December 21, 2015 injury she 

discontinued any activity that strained her knees to see if resting would heal the discomfort. After 

a few months of not doing her daily workouts, she decided to go hiking in March 2016. However, 

halfway up on appellant’s first attempt, her left knee popped and she felt the same pain she felt 

from the December 21, 2015 incident. It was then that she realized that the pain had improved and 

that the employment incident caused some damage. 

Statements from coworkers and friends, J.S., M.C., T.H., C.C., and T.W., indicated that 

appellant had informed them of the December 21, 2015 employment injury. They verified that,

since she returned from her work assignment, she no longer continued her previous level of 

exercise.

In an August 30, 2017 report, Dr. Archibald reiterated that appellant’s last follow-up visit 

from her May 13, 2015 arthroscopic surgery was January 2015 and that he had advised her then 

that she may need further surgery. He noted that he did not see her again until May 2016 at which 
4

time she reported a primary injury in December 2015 and a second reinjury in March 2016 while 

hiking. Dr. Archibald noted that appellant had since indicated that she had felt significant injury 

in December 2015 with sudden twisting and loud popping of her knee. Appellant rested her knee 

until March 2016, when she tried to hike the mountain and immediately felt a recurrence of the 

severe pain and popping she had felt in December 2015. 

Dr. Archibald indicated that, in his initial May 2016 report, he had provided a primary 

diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the left knee as appellant’s left knee was bone-on-bone on 

examination and she had lytic lesion, as verified by radiographs. However, in the August 30, 2017 

report, he explained that osteoarthritis was a progressive disease and that her osteoarthritis was 

significantly accelerated from a person of her age and general high level of fitness. Dr. Archibald 

noted that, while appellant’s osteoarthritis had been developing for years, the sudden mechanical 

pressure from a stumble or fall where all the weight of the body creates a twisting impact on a

weight-bearing joint like a knee can cause significant aggravation of underlying progressive 

changes. He opined that the December 21, 2015 employment incident was just such a pressure 

event and she had limited her physical activities until she felt well enough to try climbing the 

mountain in March 2016 and immediately had the same type of severe pain. Dr. Archibald opined 

that there had been significant aggravating trauma in December 2015 which was then exacerbated 

in March 2016. He noted that the absence of significant corresponding osteoarthritic changes in 

appellant’s right knee reinforced that there was a traumatic injury. Also the speed of appellant’s

progression of osteoarthritis in the left knee reinforced that there had been significant aggravating 

trauma and that such aggravation was permanent in nature. Dr. Archibald opined that the 

December 21, 2015 injury was the primary cause of her traumatic aggravation or, at minimum, 

was a contributory cause. 

Treatment reports from Dr. Archibald dated May 30, 2014, January 7, 2015, May 16, 

June 13 and 22, August 3 and 31, 2016, and June 5, 2017 were provided. 

Treatment reports dated June 12 and 19, 2017 from Dr. Erik Johnson, a Board-certified 

internist, pertaining to left knee injections were also provided. 

By decision dated December 20, 2017, OWCP denied modification of its December 12, 

2016 decision. It found that Dr. Archibald’s August 30, 2017 opinion was speculative and not 

supported by objective findings as required. OWCP reasoned that while in his August 30, 2017 

report he had described in greater detail the mechanism of the December 21, 2015 work injury and 

had opined that appellant had sustained significant aggravating trauma which was exacerbated by 

the March 2016 hiking incident, he did not provide objective findings of the effect of the 2015 

injury on her baseline condition and other objective findings specifically related to the intervening 

hiking incident in March 2016. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

A claimant seeking benefits under FECA4 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, 

 

4

Id. 
5

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

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There 

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must submit 

sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the 

time, place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit medical evidence to 

establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.6

To establish causal relationship the claimant must submit rationalized medical opinion 

evidence. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background, 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 claimant.7 This medical opinion must include an accurate 

history of the employee’s employment injury and must explain how the condition is related to the 

injury. The weight of medical evidence is determined by its reliability, its probative value, its 

convincing quality, the care of analysis manifested, and the medical rationale expressed in support 

of the physician’s opinion.8

In any case where a preexisting condition involving the same part of the body is present 

and the issue of causal relationship therefore involves aggravation, acceleration or precipitation, 

the physician must provide a rationalized medical opinion that differentiates between the effects 

of the work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition.9

Proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and OWCP is not a disinterested 

arbiter. While the claimant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to compensation, 

OWCP shares responsibility to see that justice is done.10 The nonadversarial policy of proceedings 

under FECA is reflected in OWCP’s regulations at section 10.121.11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

 

5 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996). 

6 A.D., Docket No. 17-1855 (issued February 26, 2018); T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008).

7 A.D., id.; I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).

8 S.H., Docket No. 17-1660 (issued March 27, 2018); James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991).

9 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013).

10 See S.M., Docket No. 16-0990 (issued February 8, 2017); Jimmy A. Hammons, 51 ECAB 219 (1999).

11 20 C.F.R. § 10.121.
6

While appellant initially alleged that she sustained a bilateral knee injury on December 21, 

2015, the medical evidence of record and OWCP’s decisions only addressed her left knee

condition. It is undisputed that she had a preexisting left knee condition and that on December 21, 

2015 she stepped off a curb, twisted her left knee, and heard a loud pop while in the performance 

of duty. It is also undisputed that in March 2016 appellant experienced the same left knee 

symptoms while hiking. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted medical evidence from Dr. Archibald. 

Dr. Archibald first examined her on May 16, 2016, approximately five months after the 

employment incident. He noted that appellant had previously undergone an arthroscopy in 

May 2013 for a microfracture and chondral lesion. Dr. Archibald described the December 21, 

2015 employment incident as a twisting injury with a loud pop. He also acknowledged that 

appellant felt the same symptoms when she misstepped while hiking in March 2016. 

Dr. Archibald characterized this event “as a recurrence of the severe pain and popping she had felt 

in December 2015.” He diagnosed primary osteoarthritis of the left knee. Dr. Archibald indicated 

that appellant’s symptoms were gradually increasing and that x-rays showed bone-on-bone 

changes in the medial joint compartment and a lytic lesion in the subchondral bone of the medial 

femoral condyle consistent with previous full-thickness articular cartilage loss area. In his 

August 10, 2016 report, he noted that her May 16, 2016 evaluation showed significant 

deterioration to the function in her left knee. 

In his October 3, 2016 report, Dr. Archibald opined that the work injury appellant sustained 

on December 21, 2015 permanently aggravated her preexisting left knee osteoarthritis. In his 

August 30, 2017 report, he provided additional rationale for his finding that the December 21, 

2015 work incident was the primary cause of significant aggravating trauma which had aggravated 

the underlying osteoarthritis. Dr. Archibald exhibited knowledge of the history of injury, 

referenced the results of x-rays in May 2016, and provided an explanation of the mechanism of 

injury to show how the December 21, 2015 work incident was the primary cause of significant 

aggravating trauma. He related that the December 21, 2015 event was an event wherein sudden 

mechanical pressure from a stumble or fall caused a twisting impact on a weight-bearing joint. 

Dr. Archibald explained how all the weight of the body creates a twisting impact on a weightbearing joint like a knee can cause significant aggravation of underlying progressive changes. He 

opined that the December 21, 2015 employment incident was just such a pressure event and 

appellant had limited her physical activities until she felt well enough to try hiking in March 2016 

and immediately had the same type of severe pain. Dr. Archibald opined that the traumatic injury 

is demonstrated as there was an absence of significant corresponding osteoarthritic changes in her 

right knee. Further, that the speed of appellant’s progression of osteoarthritis, after December 21, 

2015, in the left knee reinforced that there had been significant aggravating trauma and that such 

aggravation was permanent in nature. The Board finds that this opinion, while insufficiently 

rationalized to represent the weight of the evidence, is sufficient, given the absence of any 

opposing medical evidence, to require further development of the record.12

As noted, proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature, nor is OWCP a 

disinterested arbiter. While the claimant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to 

 

12 See J.D., Docket No. 18-0001 (issued March 27, 2018); R.B., Docket No. 16-0205 (issued October 11, 2016).
7

compensation, OWCP shares responsibility in the development of the evidence to see that justice 

is done.13 On remand, OWCP should refer appellant to an appropriate specialist for a rationalized 

opinion regarding whether she sustained a permanent aggravation of the underlying left knee 

osteoarthritis condition causally related to the accepted December 21, 2015 employment 

incident.14 After such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo

decision.15

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 20, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: November 21, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

13 See W.W., Docket No. 15-1130 (issued August 7, 2015); Phillip L. Barnes, 55 ECAB 426 (2004).

14 See M.K., Docket No. 17-1140 (issued October 18, 2017).

15 In light of the disposition of this case, the Board will not address the remainder of counsel’s arguments or the 

other reports of record.