United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.M., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NORFOLK 

NAVAL SHIPYARD, Portsmouth, VA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1142 

Issued: March 15, 2017 

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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 9, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 12, 2015 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish that he was totally 

disabled for the period November 21, 2013 to January 24, 2014 due to a September 21, 2012 

employment injury. 

On appeal appellant maintains that his current condition is only related to the 

September 2012 employment injury and is not related to his 2008 employment injuries. He 

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

generally asserts that the September 2012 claim should be expanded to include additional 

conditions.2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 24, 2012 appellant, then a 41-year-old marine electrician, file a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 21, 2012 a steel plate, which was leaning 

on a fence, fell back causing a right lower leg injury. At that time he was on temporary duty in 

Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Appellant’s regular duty station was Portsmouth, Virginia. He 

was taken to an emergency room where, following examination and x-ray, he was diagnosed 

with contusion of the right leg. Appellant was discharged in stable condition. OWCP accepted 

contusion of the right leg. Appellant received continuation of pay and wage-loss compensation, 

and returned to full duty on January 8, 2013. He was paid compensation for intermittent periods 

for medical appointments and medical treatment thereafter and was paid appropriate 

compensation. 

On August 24, 2015 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for the period 

November 21, 2013 to January 24, 2014. An attached time analysis form (Form CA-7a) 

indicated that he had not worked from November 25, 2013 through January 24, 2014. 

By letter dated August 27, 2015, OWCP informed appellant of the evidence needed to 

substantiate disability caused by the September 21, 2012 employment injury. 

Medical evidence of record relevant to the time of the claimed disability includes a 

November 21, 2013 report in which Dr. Paul J. Pontier, a Board-certified internist, noted 

appellant’s complaint of recurrent right knee pain. Dr. Pontier described a history of a prior 

medial meniscus tear and noted that appellant reported new pain in the lateral knee. He found 

pain and effusion on examination and recommended an MRI scan. 

A November 22, 2013 MRI scan of the right knee demonstrated likely postmeniscectomy 

changes and a new small tear in the horn of the medial meniscus. Anterior lateral meniscus 

degeneration was present with mild chondral abnormality as well as mild prepatellar and 

superficial infrapatellar bursitis. 

In a treatment note dated December 17, 2013, Dr. Samuel I. Brown, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, noted a history of a new right knee problem after an old injury that occurred 

five years previously, and a two-week history of sharp discomfort and swelling of the right knee. 

He also reported a long history of sciatica. Following physical examination, Dr. Brown 

diagnosed right knee pain and medial meniscus tear. He related that appellant’s pain was 

                                                             2

 The instant claim for the September 21, 2012 injury was adjudicated by OWCP under File No. xxxxxx449. As 

explained by appellant in this appeal, he has additional claims for injuries that occurred February 15 and 

July 26, 2008. OWCP adjudicated the February 15, 2008 claim under File No. xxxxxx188 and denied appellant’s 

claim for lower back and neck pain. Under File No. xxxxxx817, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for meniscal 

tear of the left knee that occurred on July 26, 2008. An August 1, 2008 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of 

the right knee demonstrated a medial meniscus tear. The history also indicates that appellant was in a motor vehicle 

accident in 1991 when he fractured C7. A November 2008 MRI scan of the lumbar spine demonstrated mild disc 

bulges at L4-5 and L5-S1. File Nos. xxxxxx188 and xxxxxx817 are not before the Board on the present appeal. 
3

atypical for meniscus pathology, opining that sciatica/radicular pain could be a factor. 

Dr. Brown advised that arthroscopic debridement was needed to rule out the knee as a source. 

On December 23, 2013 he performed right knee arthroscopy with partial medial and 

partial lateral meniscectomy. On January 7, 2014 Dr. Brown noted that surgery revealed modest 

tearing of the medial and small area of the lateral meniscus. He advised that the knee looked 

excellent postoperatively, and it was hoped that appellant could return to full duty. In reports 

dated January 21, 2014, Dr. Brown noted a history of injury that beginning in December 2013 an 

old injury flared up and was painful. He diagnosed a medial meniscus tear and checked a form 

box marked “yes,” noting “work-related injury.” Dr. Brown indicated that appellant’s knee felt 

good, advised that he could return to full duty on January 27, 2014, but reported that appellant 

had been totally disabled from December 23, 2013 to January 26, 2014. He discharged appellant 

from treatment. 

In the interim, appellant was seen by Dr. David G. Goss, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon and associate of Dr. Brown. In a January 13, 2014 report, Dr. Goss diagnosed sciatica 

and low back pain and provided an epidural steroid injection. Appellant had a second epidural 

injection on February 7, 2014. On February 17, 2014 Dr. Goss reported that appellant continued 

to have moderate-to-severe radiating low back pain. He noted that a prior MRI scan showed 

mild stenosis and L3-4 and L4-5. Dr. Goss advised that, since appellant had not progressed 

nonsurgically, he would need to have surgical decompression. On February 25, 2014 he 

performed lumbar laminectomy and decompression at L3-4 and L4-5.3

 On March 27, 2014 

Dr. Goss noted that appellant continued to have radiating low back pain postsurgery. He 

diagnosed herniated lumbar disc, low back pain, and sciatica. 

In an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated March 31, 2014, Dr. Pontier noted 

a history of right knee injury with a torn medial meniscus. He checked a box marked “yes,” 

noting “previous injuries to right knee.” Dr. Pontier advised that appellant was totally disabled 

from November 21, 2013 through February 3, 2014. He remarked that the surgeon would advise 

regarding when appellant could return to work. On an attending physician’s report dated April 4, 

2014, Dr. Pontier reiterated his findings and conclusions. 

On April 24, 2014 Dr. Goss noted that appellant continued to have severe radiating right 

leg pain and on June 5, 2014 reported that he was not much better. He advised that appellant 

showed him photographs that were date-time stamped and demonstrated significant bruising 

along the right lateral leg, just below the knee. Dr. Goss opined that it was possible that 

appellant’s symptoms could be related to a peripheral nerve crush injury and recommended a 

right lower extremity electrodiagnostic study. 

On July 21, 2014 Dr. Goss reviewed the July 15, 2014 right lower extremity 

electrodiagnostic study and found it normal. He noted that appellant’s symptoms were 

unchanged. Dr. Goss reiterated his diagnoses, counseled appellant on the importance of regular 

exercise, weight control, strength training, and core conditioning, and advised that no additional 

treatment was required. 

                                                             3

 OWCP did not authorize the February 25, 2014 back surgery or the December 23, 2013 knee surgery. 
4

In correspondence dated August 26, 2015, the employing establishment noted that on 

August 13, 2014 OWCP had denied a recurrence claim appellant had filed under File No. 

xxxxxx817 and maintained that the instant claim for wage loss was not causally related to the 

2012 employment injury. 

On October 14, 2014 Dr. Pontier reported that appellant had a known knee injury in 2008 

and additional trauma to his “left” leg in 2012, and knee derangement had been found after this 

event. 

On September 9, 2015 Dr. Brown reported that on December 17, 2013 appellant 

presented with a new injury to his right knee, as supported by a November 22, 2013 MRI scan 

that showed additional meniscal tearing.4

By decision dated November 12, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation for the period November 21, 2013 to January 24, 2014 because the medical 

evidence of record did not include a well-reasoned medical opinion explaining how his current 

disability was causally related to the September 21, 2012 employment injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Under FECA the term “disability” means the incapacity, because of an employment 

injury, to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury. Disability is thus 

not synonymous with physical impairment, which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn 

wages. An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to a federal employment 

injury, but who nevertheless has the capacity to earn the wages he or she was receiving at the 

time of injury, has no disability as that term is used in FECA.5

 Furthermore, whether a particular 

injury causes an employee to be disabled for employment and the duration of that disability are 

medical issues which must be proved by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and 

substantial medical evidence.6 

 Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish a 

causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.7

 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 

                                                             4

 A May 1, 2014 lumbar spine MRI scan demonstrated postoperative changes, a mild disc bulge at L5-S1 with a 

small annular tear, bilateral facet arthropathy, and patent canal and foramina with no overt nerve impingement. 

Dr. Goss performed epidural steroid injections on May 8 and 22, 2014. An October 6, 2015 MRI scan of the lumbar 

spine showed postoperative changes with a widely patent canal, mild multilevel degenerative disc disease and facet 

arthrosis, and a right foraminal annular tear and disc herniation at L4-5 without nerve impingement. A right leg 

MRI scan that day demonstrated postoperative changes, tricompartmental mild chondral loss, and no evidence of 

new meniscal tears. 

5 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999). 

6 Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001). 

7 Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000). 
5

relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors identified by 

the employee.8

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish that he was 

totally disabled for the period November 21, 2013 to January 24, 2014 due to a September 21, 

2012 employment injury, accepted for right leg contusion. 

Medical evidence submitted to support a claim for compensation should reflect a correct 

history, and the physician should offer a medically sound explanation of how the claimed work 

event caused or aggravated the claimed condition.9

 

The MRI scans dated November 22, 2013, May 1, 2014, and October 6, 2015 did not 

provide a cause of any diagnosed conditions, and 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.10 The lower extremity electrodiagnostic study was normal. 

The opinion of a physician supporting causal relationship must be one of reasonable 

medical certainty that the disability for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the 

accepted work injury and such relationship must be supported with affirmative evidence, 

explained by medical rationale and be based upon a complete and accurate medical and factual 

background of the claimant.11

As noted, the September 21, 2012 employment injury was accepted for right leg 

contusion. Following this injury, appellant returned to full duty on January 8, 2013. He stopped 

work in November 2013 and claimed disability from November 21, 2013 to January 24, 2014. 

Dr. Pontier noted on November 21, 2013 that appellant was complaining of recurrent 

right knee pain and had a prior history of meniscal tear. The Board notes that under File No. 

xxxxxx817 appellant had an accepted left meniscal tear that had occurred on July 26, 2008.12 

The August 1, 2008 right knee MRI scan noted a tear of the right meniscus, not the left.13 While 

Dr. Pontier indicated on attending physician’s reports dated March 31 and April 4, 2014 that 

appellant was totally disabled from November 21, 2013 through February 3, 2014 and checked a 

box marked “yes,” noting “previous injuries to right knee,” he exhibited no specific knowledge 

of the circumstances of the September 21, 2012 employment injury and failed to explain how 

                                                             8 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994). 

9 D.D., Docket No. 13-1517 (issued April 14, 2014). 

10 Willie M. Miller, 53 ECAB 697 (2002). 

11 A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006). 

12 Supra note 2. 

13 Id. 
6

this injury led to appellant’s current diagnosed condition. This opinion is therefore of limited 

probative value. 

Likewise, Dr. Brown did not link appellant’s current condition to the September 21, 2012 

employment injury. Rather, he noted on December 17, 2013 that appellant had a right knee 

problem after an old injury that occurred five years previously, or in 2008 not 2012. Dr. Brown 

performed right knee arthroscopic surgery on December 23, 2013 and advised that appellant was 

totally disabled from December 26, 2013 to January 26, 2014. At no time did he mention the 

September 21, 2012 employment injury. Dr. Brown’s opinion is also insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof. 

Dr. Goss saw appellant on January 13, 2014 for complaints of low back pain. He related 

in April 2014 that the pain radiated into the right leg. On June 5, 2014 Dr. Goss noted that 

appellant showed him photographs that were date-time stamped and demonstrated significant 

bruising along the right lateral leg, just below the knee. Although he opined that it was possible 

that appellant’s symptoms could be related to a peripheral nerve crush injury and recommended a 

right lower extremity electrodiagnostic study, a July 15, 2014 right leg electrodiagnostic study 

was normal. Moreover, Dr. Goss did not mention what date was stamped on the photographs 

and at no time indicated that appellant’s current condition was causally related to a 

September 21, 2012 employment injury. 

Thus, there is no medical opinion evidence of record that associates the period of claimed 

disability in this case to the September 21, 2012 employment injury, accepted for right leg 

contusion. 

It is appellant’s burden of proof to establish that the claimed disability was causally 

related to the September 21, 2012 employment injury. Appellant submitted insufficient evidence 

to demonstrate a causal relationship between that injury and either his current right knee or low 

back condition. 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 did not meet his burden of proof to establish that he was 

totally disabled for the period November 21, 2013 to January 24, 2014 due to a September 21, 

2012 employment injury. 
7

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 12, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 15, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees' Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees' Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees' Compensation Appeals Board