United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

I.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

San Francisco, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1118

Issued: December 31, 2018

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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 10, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 28, 2018 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 this case.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a right wrist/hand

condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the February 28, 2018 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, 

the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record 

that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the 

Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this 

additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 10, 2018 appellant, then a 35-year-old clerk, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed a right wrist injury as a result of her repetitive 

employment duties which entailed pushing a heavy cart for multiple hours a day. She noted that 

she first became aware of this condition and its relationship to her federal employment on 

May 1, 2017. Appellant stopped work on June 9, 2017. 

In a May 23, 2017 work activity status report, Dr. Martin L. Scott, an osteopath, diagnosed 

sprain of right wrist and hand. He released appellant to work with restrictions. 

By development letter dated January 18, 2018, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of medical and factual 

evidence needed and afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. No further evidence 

was received.

By decision dated February 28, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the diagnosed sprain of her right wrist 

and hand was causally related to the established factors of federal employment. 

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 or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the 

employment injury.3 These are the essential elements of every compensation claim regardless of 

whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or 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.5 

To establish causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant disability 

claimed, and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit rationalized medical 

 

3 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1154 (1989).

4 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).

5 R.B., Docket No. 18-0720 (issued November 13, 2018).
3

opinion evidence supporting such causal relationship.6 The opinion of the physician must be based 

on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, 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. 

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.7

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a right 

wrist/hand condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.8 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a May 23, 2017 work activity status report 

from Dr. Scott who diagnosed sprain of right wrist and hand. The Board finds that his report is 

insufficient to establish her occupational disease claim.9 While Dr. Scott noted a firm medical 

diagnosis, he failed to provide an opinion on the cause of appellant’s injury.10 The Board has held 

that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s 

condition is of no probative value.11 Dr. Scott failed to identify appellant’s work as a mail clerk 

and had no understanding of her federal employment duties to establish causation. He provided 

no explanation as to the mechanism of injury pertaining to this occupational disease claim, namely, 

how repetitively pushing a heavy mail cart would cause appellant’s right wrist injury.

12

 Without 

mention of the repetitive employment duties, any findings made could not be related to her claim 

to establish causal relationship.13 As Dr. Scott failed to provide a medically sound explanation of 

how the specific employment factors, in particular physiologically, caused or aggravated 

appellant’s right wrist sprain, his report is insufficient to establish her claim.14

An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture, speculation, or on the 

employee’s own belief of causal relationship.15 Appellant’s honest belief that the factors of her 

 

6 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.110(a); John M. Tornello, 35 ECAB 234 (1983).

7

James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991).

8 See Robert Broome, 55 ECAB 339 (2004).

9

J.I., Docket No. 18-0286 (issued September 17, 2018).

10 D.H., Docket No. 11-1739 (issued April 18, 2012).

11 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

12 S.W., Docket 08-2538 (issued May 21, 2009).

13 S.Y., Docket No. 11-1816 (issued March 16, 2012).

14 T.G., Docket No. 14-0751 (issued October 20, 2014).

15 G.M., Docket No. 18-0613 (issued October 15, 2018). 
4

federal employment caused her medical condition, however, sincerely held, does not constitute 

medical evidence sufficient to establish causal relationship.16

For these reasons, the Board finds that the medical evidence of record is insufficient to 

establish causal relationship between appellant’s federal employment duties as a mail clerk and 

her right wrist/hand sprain.

17

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.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a right 

wrist/hand condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 28, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 31, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

16 J.S., Docket No. 18-0477 (issued August 28, 2018).

17 T.O., Docket No. 18-0139 (issued May 24, 2018).