United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.R., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. SECRET SERVICE, Charlotte, NC, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1681

Issued: December 1, 2017

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 August 1, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 27, 2017 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish a left elbow injury 

causally related to the accepted July 5, 2016 employment incident.

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 Appellant submitted additional evidence to the Board on appeal. The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to 

reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision on March 27, 2017. Therefore, this 

additional evidence cannot be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 6, 2017 appellant, then a 45-year-old senior special agent, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 5, 2016 he sustained tendinosis and a partial tear 

of a tendon in his left arm/elbow area when loading his luggage onto a truck as part of his 

preparation to depart on an assignment to Warsaw, Poland. He did not stop work. 

By letter dated February 14, 2017, OWCP advised appellant of the type of evidence 

needed to establish his claim, particularly requesting that he submit a physician’s reasoned 

opinion addressing how the alleged employment incident caused or aggravated a medical 

condition. 

Appellant came under the treatment of Dr. Ranjan Maitra, a Board-certified orthopedist, 

on September 22, 2016, for a two-month history of right shoulder and left elbow pain. He

reported handling luggage and baggage for his crew while traveling out of the country. 

Appellant noted lifting approximately 40 bags on top of a luggage cart with his left arm as they 

were handed to him from below. He also complained of pain on the superior aspect of the right 

shoulder. Appellant’s history was significant for left shoulder arthroscopy in 2011.3 Dr. Maitra 

left elbow findings of pain on palpation of the lateral epicondyle. X-rays of the left elbow 

revealed no abnormalities. Dr. Maitra diagnosed right shoulder pain, elbow pain, and lateral 

epicondylitis of the left elbow. He provided a cortisone injection into the elbow for lateral 

epicondylitis, prescribed a tennis elbow strap, and referred him to a rehabilitation program. In a 

November 23, 2016 report, Dr. Maitra noted that appellant presented with persistent left elbow

pain with dysfunction and left arm weakness. Appellant reported that his symptoms were 

present for six months occurring after an episode of lifting heavy luggage during a secret service 

security detail trip. He noted no improvement with the cortisone injection. Dr. Maitra noted left 

elbow findings of minimal pain to palpation, pain in the lateral epicondyle, normal motor 

function, and intact sensation. He diagnosed lateral epicondylitis of the left elbow and 

recommended a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. A December 10, 2016 MRI scan of 

the left elbow revealed tendinosis, partial tearing at the common extensor origin, and mild 

tendinosis of the common flexor origin. 

On January 11, 2017 Dr. Maitra noted that appellant failed conservative treatment 

including cortisone injection, rehabilitation exercises, and a tennis elbow strap. Findings 

included tenderness on palpation of the lateral epicondyle, intact motor strength, and intact 

sensation throughout the left arm. Dr. Maitra noted left elbow MRI scan findings of tendinosis

and partial tearing of the common extensor origin. He recommended surgery for the persistent 

pain and dysfunction related to the chronic lateral epicondylitis. Dr. Maitra noted that appellant 

would be in a splint for four to six weeks after surgery and a retraining program over the 

subsequent three to six months. He diagnosed lateral epicondylitis of the left elbow and 

continued appellant’s current work activities without restriction. In a work status note dated 

January 11, 2017, Dr. Maitra diagnosed left elbow epicondylitis and noted appellant’s injury was 

work related. He indicated that appellant required surgery of the left elbow and would have 

restrictions on the left arm for two to three months postoperatively.

 

3 Appellant indicated that he was not claiming his shoulder conditions as being employment related.
3

In a March 27, 2017 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation, finding 

that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical condition causally 

related to the accepted work incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4has 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 of FECA, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that 

any disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to 

the employment injury. These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon 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 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 sufficient to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.6

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is generally 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 factors identified by the claimant.7

ANALYSIS

It is undisputed that on July 5, 2016 appellant was loading luggage onto a truck in 

preparation for a travel assignment to Poland. However, appellant has not submitted sufficient 

medical evidence to establish that his claimed left elbow injury is causally related to the accepted 

July 5, 2016 employment incident.

Appellant submitted a September 22, 2016 report from Dr. Maitra who treated him for a 

two-month history of left elbow pain. He reported handling luggage and baggage for his crew 

while traveling out of the country. Appellant noted lifting approximately 40 bags on top of a 

luggage cart with his left arm as they were handed to him from below. Dr. Maitra diagnosed left 

elbow pain and lateral epicondylitis of the left elbow. On November 23, 2016 he treated 

appellant for persistent left elbow pain. Appellant reported a six-month history of left elbow 

 

4

Supra note 1.

5 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 357 (2001).

6

T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008).

7

I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).
4

pain occurring after an episode of lifting heavy luggage during a secret service security detail 

trip. Dr. Maitra again diagnosed left elbow lateral epicondylitis. However, he merely repeated 

the history of injury as reported by appellant without providing his own opinion regarding 

whether the diagnosed condition was work related. Dr. Maitra failed to provide a rationalized 

opinion regarding any causal relationship between appellant’s lateral epicondylitis of the left 

elbow and the accepted employment incident.8 Therefore, his September 22 and November 23, 

2016 reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

In a January 11, 2017 work status note, Dr. Maitra diagnosed left elbow epicondylitis and 

noted that appellant’s injury was work related. He indicated that appellant would require left 

elbow surgery and would have work restrictions postoperatively. The Board finds that, although

Dr. Maitra supported causal relationship, he did not provide medical rationale explaining the 

basis of his conclusory opinion regarding the causal relationship.9 Dr. Maitra did not explain 

how or why loading pieces of luggage onto a truck would cause or aggravate the diagnosed left 

elbow conditions. This report is thus insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

The additional medical reports contained in the record are also of limited probative value 

as they do not specifically address whether appellant’s work duties caused or aggravated a 

diagnosed medical condition.10

Consequently, the Board finds that appellant failed to submit sufficient medical evidence 

to establish a left elbow injury causally related to the accepted employment incident of

July 5, 2016. 

On appeal appellant disagrees with OWCP’s decision denying his claim for 

compensation and noted that he submitted sufficient evidence to establish his claim. As noted 

above, the medical evidence of record at the time of OWCP’s March 27, 2017 decision does not 

establish that appellant’s diagnosed left elbow condition is causally related to the July 5, 2016 

employment incident. Reports from appellant’s physicians failed to provide sufficient medical 

rationale explaining how or why appellant’s left elbow condition is causally related to the 

accepted employment incident.

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. 

 

8 Franklin D. Haislah, 52 ECAB 457 (2001) (medical reports not containing rationale on causal relationship are 

entitled to little probative value); Jimmie H. Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001). 

9

See T.M., Docket No. 08-975 (issued February 6, 2009) (a medical report is of limited probative value on the 

issue of causal relationship if it contains a conclusion regarding causal relationship which is unsupported by medical 

rationale).

10 A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006) (medical evidence which does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an 

employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship). 
5

CONCLUSION

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

injury causally related to the accepted July 5, 2016 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 27, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 1, 2017

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