United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.V., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Newark, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1394 

Issued: December 22, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Andrew M. Baron, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 8, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a December 12, 2014 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1

 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 merit decision in the case.3

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained a 

traumatic injury in the performance of duty. 

 1

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence with his request for appeal. The Board’s 

jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Therefore, 

the Board is precluded from considering the new evidence pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c). 

 2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

3

 Appellant filed a timely request for oral argument. By order dated October 27, 2015, the Board denied his 

request as his arguments could be adequately addressed in a decision based on a review of the case record. Order 

Denying Request for Oral Argument, Docket No. 15-1394 (issued October 27, 2015). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 28, 2014, appellant then a 48 year-old city letter carrier, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1), alleging that on January 27, 2014 he was robbed at gunpoint while on 

his mail route and subsequently experienced occupational stress. Appellant stopped work on 

January 27, 2014 and did not return. 

Appellant submitted an attending physician’s form report from Dr. Alapatt Thomas, a 

Board-certified internist, dated January 28, 2014, who noted appellant was robbed at gunpoint 

and experienced anxiety. He noted, by checking a box marked “yes,” that appellant’s condition 

was caused or aggravated by an employment activity. The physician noted appellant was totally 

disabled from January 27 to March 28, 2014. In a duty status report dated January 28, 2014, 

Dr. Thomas noted clinical findings, diagnosed anxiety and depression, and found appellant 

unable to return to work. 

On February 3, 2014, OWCP advised appellant of the evidence necessary to establish his 

claim. It requested appellant to submit additional evidence to include a detailed description of 

the employment incident(s) that contributed to his claimed illness. OWCP requested that the 

employing establishment to provide comments from a knowledgeable supervisor on the accuracy 

of all statements, provide a copy of the employee’s position description and physical 

requirements, and address whether appellant was able to perform the required duties. 

In a statement dated February 3, 2014, the agency concurred with appellant’s statements. 

In a decision dated March 12, 2014, OWCP accepted incident, but denied appellant’s 

claim for compensation as the medical evidence did not establish a diagnosed medical condition 

in connection with the accepted incident. 

On March 30, 2014, appellant requested reconsideration. In a statement dated March 28, 

2014 appellant indicated that his psychologist had recommended anti-depressant medication after 

the work incident. He noted that after the incident he did not leave his house and did not speak 

to anyone. In a March 14, 2014 report, Dr. Daniel E. Williams, a clinical psychologist, treated 

appellant for extreme anxiety, moderate depression, and flash backs as a result of being held up 

while delivering mail at work. Dr. Williams diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and social 

stressors. The psychologist recommended remaining off work until May 1, 2014. In a report 

dated April 25, 2014, Dr. Williams noted appellant was anticipating his return to work on 

May 1, 2014. The psychologist opined that appellant was not ready to return to delivering mail 

in environments that were very threatening and frightening to him and where he fears for his life. 

Dr. Williams found appellant to be extremely anxious, moderately depressed and experiencing 

flashbacks of being held up. Dr. Williams diagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder and psychosocial stressors. He recommended appellant return to work on July 7, 2014. 

The employing establishment submitted a June 16, 2014 report from a U.S. Postal 

Inspector who noted that there was an active investigation in which appellant was a victim of an 

armed robbery while delivering mail along his route. The inspector noted that on January 27, 

2014 at approximately 2:15 p.m. appellant was robbed at gunpoint by three unidentified males 

inside a housing development located in Newark, NJ. Appellant reported that one of the suspects 
3

shoved him up against the cluster box and stated, “Give me what you got, Give me your money.” 

Another suspect cocked a rifle and pointed it at appellant. The suspects fled after stealing 

appellant’s cellphone and his money. 

In a decision dated July 18, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as modified. OWCP 

noted that, although appellant had submitted sufficient medical evidence from Dr. Williams to 

establish a firm medical diagnosis, he had failed to provide a rationalized medical opinion which 

showed that the accepted January 27, 2014 incident caused the diagnosed medical condition. 

On September 11, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration. He submitted a Form CA-1 

dated January 28, 2014, OWCP decisions dated March 12 and July 18, 2014, reports from 

Dr. Williams dated March 14 and April 25, 2014, and a narrative statement dated March 28, 

2014, all previously of record. 

Appellant submitted a July 11, 2014 report from Dr. Williams who noted appellant was 

very anxious about having to return to work. He opined that emotionally appellant was not ready 

to return to work and would be disabled until August 4, 2014. Dr. Williams diagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder and psycho-social stressors. In a September 10, 2014 report, 

Dr. Williams noted treating appellant beginning on March 14, 2014 after he was robbed at 

gunpoint while delivering mail. Dr. Williams opined that the diagnosed post-traumatic stress 

disorder was directly and causally related to the work-related incident that he experienced on 

January 27, 2014, wherein he was the victim of an armed robbery. He diagnosed post-traumatic 

stress disorder and psycho-social stressors. Appellant was treated by Dr. Thomas on August 25, 

2014 who diagnosed insomnia, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Appellant report 

being held at gun point during on January 27, 2014 at work and since that incident experienced 

high levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. Dr. Thomas noted appellant never had these 

conditions prior to this incident. He noted appellant was exhibiting symptoms of post-traumatic 

stress disorder and he recommended appellant take a leave absence from work until 

September 14, 2014. 

In a decision dated December 12, 2014, OWCP denied modification of the prior decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

To establish an emotional condition in the performance of duty, a claimant must submit 

the following: (1) medical evidence establishing that he or she has an emotional or psychiatric 

disorder; (2) factual evidence identifying employment factors or incidents alleged to have caused 

or contributed to the condition; and (3) rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing that 

the identified compensable employment factors are causally related to the emotional condition.4

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing 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 is causally related to the 

 4 George H. Clark, 56 ECAB 162 (2004). 
4

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 occupational disease.5

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.6

ANALYSIS 

The evidence establishes and OWCP has accepted that appellant was robbed at gunpoint 

by three unidentified males while delivering his mail route on January 27, 2014.

To establish his claim, appellant must also submit rationalized medical evidence 

establishing that his claimed medical conditions are causally related to the accepted incident.7 

While it is undisputed that appellant has anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, the medical 

evidence does not sufficiently establish the causal connection between the accepted incident and 

the anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. 

In his March 14, 2014 report, Dr. Williams treated appellant for extreme anxiety, 

moderate depression and flash backs as a result of being held up while delivering mail at work. 

Dr. Williams diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder, and social stressors. In reports dated 

April 25 and July 11, 2014, Dr. Williams noted appellant was anticipating his return to work on 

May 1, 2014. The psychologist found appellant to be extremely anxious, moderately depressed, 

and experiencing flashbacks of being robbed. He diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and 

opined that appellant was not ready to return to work. Similarly, in a September 10, 2014 report, 

Dr. Williams opined that the diagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder was directly and causally 

related to the work-related incident that he experienced on January 27, 2014, wherein he was the 

victim of an armed robbery. He diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder. Although 

Dr. Williams supported causal relationship, he did not provide sufficient medical rationale 

explaining how the robbery incident caused the diagnoses. The Board has held that a report 

which lacks rationalization is insufficient.8

Appellant submitted an attending physician’s report from Dr. Thomas who noted 

appellant was robbed at gunpoint and experienced anxiety. Dr. Thomas checked a box marked 

“yes” that appellant’s condition was caused or aggravated by an employment activity. He noted 

appellant was totally disabled from January 27 to March 28, 2014. The Board has held that an 

opinion on causal relationship which consists only of a physician checking a box marked “yes” 

to a medical form report question on whether the claimant’s condition was related to the history 

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

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

7 See William P. George, 43 ECAB 1159, 1167 (1992). 

8 Supra note 6. 
5

given is of little probative value. Without any explanation or rationale for the conclusion 

reached, such report is insufficient to establish causal relationship.9

In his duty status report dated January 28, 2014, Dr. Thomas noted clinical findings and 

diagnosed anxiety and depression and advised that appellant could not work. In the August 25, 

2014 report Dr. Thomas diagnosed insomnia, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. 

Appellant report being held at gun point during on January 27, 2014 at work and since that 

incident experienced high levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. Dr. Thomas noted that 

appellant never suffered from these conditions prior to the incident. The Board has held that an 

opinion that a condition is causally related to an employment injury because the employee was 

asymptomatic before the injury is insufficient, without supporting rationale, to support a causal 

relationship.10 

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence 

establishing that his claimed conditions are causally related to the accepted compensable 

employment factors.11

On appeal appellant asserts that OWCP had improperly denied his claim as he believed 

he had submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish that his diagnosed condition was 

causally related to the accepted compensable employment factor of January 27, 2014. As noted 

above, the medical evidence does not establish that appellant’s diagnosed conditions were 

causally related to the accepted employment factor. Reports from appellant’s physicians failed 

to provide sufficient medical rationale explaining how appellant’s diagnosed medical conditions 

were caused or aggravated by the accepted employment factor. 

 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 that he 

sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty. 

 9

 The Board has held that when a physician’s opinion on causal relationship consists only of checking “yes” to a 

form question, without explanation or rationale, that opinion is of diminished probative value and is insufficient to 

establish a claim. Sedi L. Graham, 57 ECAB 494 (2006); D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006). 

10 Kimper Lee, 45 ECAB 565 (1994). 

11 See William P. George, supra note 7. 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 12, 2014 decision of OWCP is 

affirmed. 

Issued: December 22, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board