United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION PLANT, Manchester, NH, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0972

Issued: December 13, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 11, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 23, 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 to 

consider the merits of this case.2

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure

provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to 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

ISSUE

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

conditions causally related to the accepted July 16, 2017 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 18, 2017 appellant, then a 60-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on July 16, 2017 he sustained a left shoulder injury while in the 

performance of duty. He stopped work on that day.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted state workers’ compensation medical forms,

dated July 16, 19, and 26, 2017, noting his injury date of July 16, 2017, describing how the injury 

occurred, and diagnosing left shoulder rotator cuff injury. The physician’s signature on the 

July 16, 2017 form report was that of Dr. Marie Arringdale, an examining Board-certified 

emergency room physician. In form reports dated July 19 and 26, 2017, Dr. Jolene J. Shuman, an 

examining physician Board-certified in family medicine, signed the diagnosed a possible tear in 

addition to rotator cuff injury in the July 26, 2017 form report.

By development letter dated August 4, 2017, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies 

of his claim and afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

OWCP thereafter received additional medical evidence. In reports dated July 19, 26, 

August 14 and 28, 2017, Dr. Shuman noted that appellant developed left shoulder pain on July 16, 

2017 while lifting heavy trays and packages, and performing repetitive movements. A physical 

examination revealed limited left shoulder range of motion and significant pain. Diagnoses 

included left shoulder joint pain, left shoulder injury, and possible left rotator cuff tear.

In an August 14, 2017 narrative report, Dr. Shuman noted that appellant was injured at 

work on July 16, 2017 and had been unable to return to work. She observed that his left shoulder 

condition was not improving and that appellant continued to experience pain. Dr. Shuman 

completed August 28 and September 8, 2017 state workers’ compensation medical form reports 

wherein she repeated her prior opinions.

On August 31, 2017 appellant was seen by Dr. Gavin R. Webb, an examining Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Webb noted a history of appellant’s July 16, 2017 employment 

incident. Physical examination findings included left shoulder tenderness on palpation, positive 

Hawkin’s and Near’s tests, negative Speed’s and O’Brien’s test, and pain with movement. 

Dr. Webb reviewed an August 31, 2017 x-ray interpretation of appellant’s left shoulder which 

revealed moderate acromioclavicular joint changes and no significant fracture, bone lesson, or 

glenohumeral arthritis. He diagnosed left shoulder pain.

In an August 31, 2017 form report, Dr. Webb noted an injury date of July 16, 2017, 

described how the injury occurred and diagnosed suspected left shoulder rotator cuff tear.

By decision dated September 13, 2017, OWCP accepted that the July 16, 2017 incident 

occurred as alleged. However, it denied the claim because the medical evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish a firm medical diagnosis due to the accepted July 16, 2017 employment
3

incident. OWCP noted that pain is a symptom and not a medical diagnosis. It, therefore,

concluded that he had not met the requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

In a form dated and postmarked on October 13, 2017, appellant requested a review of the 

written record by an OWCP hearing representative.

On October 4, 2017 appellant was seen by Dr. Webb who provided examination findings. 

Dr. Webb related that review of appellant’s magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the left 

shoulder revealed severe tendinopathy and partial subscapularis tendon partial thickness tearing. 

He also reviewed an x-ray performed that day with findings unchanged from the August 31, 2017 

x-ray interpretation. Dr. Webb diagnosed left shoulder biceps tendinitis and left shoulder partial 

thickness rotator cuff tear. He noted that a left shoulder arthroscopy with subacromial 

decompression and acromioplasty had been performed.

Dr. Webb, in an October 23, 2017 report, noted that appellant was seen for a follow-up 

examination for a left shoulder injury sustained at work on July 16, 2017. Physical examination 

findings were unchanged. Appellant related that he had developed right shoulder problems which 

he attributed to compensation for his left shoulder. A review of the MRI scan of the left shoulder 

revealed severe tendinopathy and partial subscapularis tendon partial thickness tearing. Dr. Webb 

also reviewed an x-ray performed that day with findings unchanged from the August 31, 2017 xray interpretation. Diagnoses for the left shoulder included partial thickness rotator cuff tear and 

bicipital tendinitis.

By decision dated February 23, 2018, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

September 13, 2017 decision, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that 

appellant’s diagnosed left shoulder conditions were causally related to the accepted July 16, 2017 

employment incident.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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.4 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.5

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.6 First, 

 

3 Supra note 1.

4 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006).

5 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

6 B.F., Docket No. 09-60 (issued March 17, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, supra note 4.
4

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.7 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.8

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is required to establish causal relationship. 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 incident

identified by the claimant.9

ANALYSIS

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

shoulder conditions were causally related to the accepted July 16, 2017 employment incident.

A July 16, 2017 form report signed by Dr. Arringdale detailed a history of appellant’s 

injury and diagnosed rotator cuff injury. While Dr. Arringdale diagnosed an injury, she provided

no opinion regarding the cause of appellant’s condition. Medical evidence which does not offer 

any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue 

of causal relationship.10 While this form report reflects immediate treatment following the 

employment incident, it fails to relate any opinion regarding the cause of appellant’s condition and 

is therefore insufficient to establish his traumatic injury claim.11

Appellant also submitted a number of state medical forms and narrative reports dated from 

July 19 through August 31, 2017 from Dr. Shuman noting appellant’s July 16, 2017 employment 

incident. Dr. Shuman’s diagnoses included rotator cuff injury, possible left rotator cuff tear, and 

left shoulder joint pain. The Board notes “rotator cuff injury” is not a specific diagnosis.12 

Dr. Shuman’s diagnosis of left shoulder joint pain is a description of a symptom rather than a clear 

diagnosis of the medical condition.13 For these reasons, Dr. Shuman’s reports are insufficient to 

establish a medical diagnosis in connection with appellant’s July 16, 2017 accepted work incident. 

The record also contains reports dated August 31, October 4, and 23, 2017 and state form 

medical reports dated August 31, 2017 from Dr. Webb. Dr. Webb diagnosed left shoulder pain in 

 

7 D.B., 58 ECAB 464 (2007); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005).

8 C.B., Docket No. 08-1583 (issued December 9, 2008); D.G., 59 ECAB 734 (2008); Bonnie A. Contreras, supra

note 4.

9 M.L., Docket No. 17-1026 (issued April 20, 2018).

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

11 J.A., Docket No. 17-1936 (issued August 13, 2018); J.P., Docket No. 14-0087 (issued March 14, 2014).

12 See T.W., Docket No. 11-2109 (issued July 2, 2012). 

13 See P.S., Docket No. 12-1601 (issued January 2, 2013); C.F., Docket No. 08-1102 (issued October 10, 2008).
5

his August 31, 2017 report and suspected left shoulder rotator cuff tear in the August 31, 2017 

form report. As previously noted, these are not valid diagnoses of appellant’s left shoulder 

condition.14 Dr. Webb, in reports dated October 4 and 23, 2017, diagnosed left shoulder partial 

thickness rotator cuff tear and left shoulder bicipital tendinitis. While noting the July 16, 2017 

injury history, he did not specifically address nor offer any opinion as to whether the diagnosed 

conditions had been caused or aggravated by the accepted July 16, 2017 employment incident.15 

Therefore, the Board finds that his reports are insufficient to establish that appellant’s diagnosed 

left shoulder conditions were causally related to the accepted July 16, 2017 employment incident.

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

employee’s own belief of causal relation.16 Appellant’s honest belief that the July 16, 2017

employment incident caused his left shoulder conditions, however, sincerely held, does not 

constitute medical evidence necessary to establish causal relationship.17

The evidence of record lacks rationalized medical evidence establishing causal relationship 

between the accepted July 16, 2017 employment incident and appellant’s left shoulder conditions. 

Thus, the Board finds that he has failed to meet his burden of proof.

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 his burden of proof to establish left shoulder 

conditions causally related to the accepted July 16, 2017 employment incident.

 

14 Supra note 13 and 14. 

15 See supra note 10.

16 S.S., 59 ECAB 315 (2008); J.M., 58 ECAB 303 (2007); Donald W. Long, 41 ECAB 142 (1989).

17 S.H., Docket No. 17-1447 (issued January 11, 2018).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs dated February 23, 2018 is affirmed.

Issued: December 13, 2018

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board