United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.J., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

Hauppauge, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1365 

Issued: September 23, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 1, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an April 9, 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 has met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained 

an injury on September 30, 2013 in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 17, 2013 appellant, then a 50-year-old revenue officer, filed a traumatic 

injury claim alleging that on September 30, 2013 she injured her right leg and knee when she 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

“stood up from a sitting position [and] heard her knee pop....” She stopped work on 

September 30, 2013. The employing establishment controverted the claim as appellant was 

teleworking from home and it was unclear if the incident was work related. 

In an emergency room report dated September 30, 2013, appellant provided a history of a 

knee injury an hour early while walking. Dr. Ryosuke Ito, an osteopath, diagnosed knee pain, a 

knee strain, and a possible ligament injury. 

In a report dated October 1, 2013, Dr. Alexander S. Finger, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, evaluated appellant for right knee pain. He stated, “She reports coming downstairs 

yesterday when she twisted and felt a pop and pain in the right knee.” Dr. Finger diagnosed a 

right knee strain and possible anterior cruciate ligament injury. 

A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan study performed on October 3, 2013 revealed 

a tear of the medial meniscus of the posterior horn of the right knee. 

In a progress report dated October 8, 2013, Dr. Finger discussed appellant’s continued 

complaints of pain in her right knee and noted that an MRI scan study revealed arthritis and a 

tear of the medial meniscus.2

 He diagnosed a knee and leg sprain/strain and a tear of the medial 

cartilage or meniscus of the knee. Dr. Finger referred appellant for physical therapy. 

By letter dated October 22, 2013, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional 

factual and medical evidence, including a factual statement describing the circumstances 

surrounding the September 30, 2013 incident and a detailed report from her attending physician 

addressing the causal relationship between any diagnosed condition and the identified work 

incident. 

In a statement dated October 28, 2013, appellant indicated that she worked full time from 

her residence. She advised that immediately following a conference call with the power of 

attorney for a taxpayer she went to fax a memorandum about the conversation. Appellant 

stepped down into her den and “heard a pop [and] felt horrible pain” in her right knee. She 

telephoned her supervisor within a half hour about the incident. Appellant’s daughter took her to 

the hospital when she got home from school. 

In a form report dated October 29, 2013, Dr. Finger diagnosed a tear of the meniscus of 

the right knee and checked “yes” that the condition was caused or aggravated by employment. 

The history of injury on the form indicated that appellant twisted her knee going downstairs 

while working. Dr. Finger provided as a rationale for his causation finding that she “twisted 

[her] knee at work.” He found that appellant was disabled for about eight weeks beginning 

October 1, 2013. 

On November 13, 2013 the employing establishment controverted the claim as the 

history of injury on the claim form of appellant of experiencing a pop in her knee standing up 

differed from the history of injury contained in the medical reports of her injuring her knee 

walking down stairs. It also noted that she was working at home at the time of her injury. 

 2

 On October 16, 2013 a physician assistant opined that appellant was unable to work. 
3

In a disability certificate dated November 19, 2013, Dr. Finger determined that appellant 

could resume work without restrictions. In a progress report dated November 19, 2013, he noted 

that she had not improved with physical therapy. Dr. Finger diagnosed a knee and leg 

sprain/strain and a tear of the medial cartilage or meniscus of the knee. 

By decision dated November 29, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim after finding that 

she did not establish the occurrence of the September 30, 2013 work incident.3 It determined 

that her description of the September 30, 2013 incident varied from the history of injury 

contained in the medical evidence. OWCP further found that appellant had not shown that she 

was injured at home performing a duty directly related to her employment. 

On November 29, 2013 appellant requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative. She stated that when she telephoned her manager after her injury she was in 

significant pain and “by no means thinking clearly.” Appellant indicated that she was working at 

her dining room table on her laptop and had to go to a lower level to use her fax machine. She 

submitted evidence documenting that she was performing work duties at the time of her injury. 

In an e-mail dated December 6, 2013, appellant’s supervisor confirmed appellant’s 

description of the work duties she was performing on September 30, 2013. 

At the telephone hearing, held on June 16, 2014, appellant stated that she worked at home 

in an upstairs office and at her dining room table.4

 She also used a fax machine for work located 

in a sunken den that had a step leading down into it. On September 30, 2013 appellant stepped 

down into her den to send a fax, heard a pop, and experienced “excruciating pain.” She stated 

that she must have twisted her knee when she stepped down. Appellant crawled to the telephone 

and called her supervisor. She indicated that her supervisor completed the traumatic injury 

claim. Appellant noticed that the history was incorrect on the form, but did not believe that it 

mattered. 

In a report dated May 23, 2014, Dr. Gregg J. Jarit, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

advised that appellant was status post partial lateral meniscectomy of the right knee. He opined 

that she was unable to work. 

In an e-mail dated July 2, 2014, appellant’s supervisor reviewed the hearing transcript 

and stated that appellant was “hurt while working” and reported it “as soon as she could....” 

By decision dated September 5, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

November 29, 2013 decision as modified to reflect that appellant had established the occurrence 

of the work incident. She determined, however, that the medical evidence was insufficient to 

show that she sustained a right knee condition as a result of the September 30, 2013 employment 

incident. 

 3

 A claims examiner signed the November 29, 2013 decision on December 2, 2013. 

4

 On March 14, 2014 appellant’s counsel requested a telephone hearing instead of an oral hearing. 
4

In a report dated April 25, 2014, received by OWCP on January 15, 2015, Dr. Jarit noted 

that appellant was scheduled for surgery on May 14, 2014 and would be off work until 

May 28, 2014. He found that she could currently perform light duty. 

In a form report dated December 12, 2014, Dr. Jarit described the injury as occurring 

when appellant, while working from home, “tripped when walking from her office to the den.” 

He diagnosed a medial and lateral meniscal tear status after a partial medial and lateral 

meniscectomy. Dr. Jarit signed below a statement on the form that the work activities described 

resulted in the diagnosed condition. 

On January 15, 2015 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. 

By decision dated April 9, 2015, OWCP denied modification of its September 5, 2014 

decision. It found that appellant had not submitted reasoned medical evidence showing how the 

September 30, 2013 work incident caused or aggravated a diagnosed condition. 

On appeal appellant’s counsel contends that OWCP did not properly evaluate the medical 

evidence. He noted that she described a twisting injury to her knee which was supported by an 

appropriate evaluation of the medical evidence. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5

 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; that an injury was sustained while 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.6 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.7

To determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of 

duty, OWCP must determine whether “fact of injury” is established. First, an employee has the 

burden of demonstrating the occurrence of an injury at the time, place, and in the manner 

alleged, by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.8

 Second, the 

employee must submit sufficient evidence, generally only in the form of medical evidence, to 

establish a causal relationship between the employment incident and the alleged disability and/or 

condition for which compensation is claimed.9

 An employee may establish that the employment 

 5

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

6 Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005); Anthony P. Silva, 55 ECAB 179 (2003). 

7 See Elizabeth H. Kramm (Leonard O. Kramm), 57 ECAB 117 (2005); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 

8 David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); Delphyne L. Glover, 51 ECAB 146 (1999). 

9 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997). 
5

incident occurred as alleged, but fail to show that her disability and/or condition relates to the 

employment incident.10

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

causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 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.11

OWCP’s procedures address off-premises injuries sustained by workers who perform 

service at home. It states: 

“Ordinarily, the protection of [FECA] does not extend to the employee’s home, 

but there is an exception when the injury is sustained while the employee is 

performing official duties. In situations of this sort, the critical problem is to 

ascertain whether at the time of injury the employee was in fact doing something 

for the employer. The official superior should be requested to submit a statement 

showing: 

(a) What directives were given to or what arrangements had been made 

with the employee for performing work at home or outside usual working 

hours; 

(b) The particular work the employee was performing when injured; and 

(c) Whether the official superior is of the opinion the employee was 

performing official duties at the time of the injury, with appropriate 

explanation for such opinion.”12

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that she injured her right knee on September 30, 2013 when she twisted 

her knee walking down a step in her residence on her way to use a fax machine in furtherance of 

her employment duties. Her supervisor confirmed that she was performing official work duties 

in a telework status at the time of the alleged incident and thus in the performance of duty.13 

While the original history of injury provided on the claim form of her experiencing knee pain 

after standing from a sitting position varied from the history provided on the medical reports of 

her twisting her knee going down stairs, appellant explained that her supervisor completed the 

 10 Id.

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

12 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Performance of Duty, Chapter 2.804.5(f)(1) 

(August 1992); see also S.F., Docket No. 09-2172 (issued August 23, 2010). 

13 Id. 
6

claim form and that at the time she described the incident to her supervisor she was in 

considerable pain and not able to think lucidly. Appellant subsequently provided a detailed 

description of the circumstances surrounding the September 30, 2013 incident. OWCP accepted 

the occurrence of the September 30, 2013 employment incident. The issue, which remains, is 

whether the medical evidence is sufficient to establish that appellant sustained an injury as a 

result of this incident. 

On September 30, 2013 appellant received treatment from Dr. Ito at the emergency room. 

She provided a history of experiencing knee pain one hour earlier while walking. Dr. Ito 

diagnosed knee pain, a knee strain, and a possible ligament injury. He did not, however, directly 

address the cause of the diagnosed conditions and thus his opinion is of little probative value.14

In a report dated October 1, 2013, Dr. Finger obtained a history of appellant experiencing 

right knee pain and feeling a pop in her knee after going down stairs the day before. He 

diagnosed a right knee strain and potential injury to the anterior cruciate ligament. Dr. Finger 

did not, however, specifically attribute the diagnosed conditions to the September 30, 2013 work 

incident; consequently, his opinion is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.15

On October 8, 2013 Dr. Finger evaluated appellant for continued right knee pain. He 

reviewed the findings on an MRI scan study demonstrating arthritis and a medial meniscus tear. 

Dr. Finger diagnosed a knee and leg sprain/strain and a tear of the medial cartilage or meniscus 

of the knee. Again, however, he did not provide an opinion that the identified employment 

incident resulted in the diagnosed right knee condition and thus his report is of diminished 

probative value.16 

In a form report dated October 29, 2013, Dr. Finger diagnosed a tear of the meniscus of 

the right knee and checked “yes” that the condition was caused or aggravated by employment. 

He explained his causation finding by noting that appellant “twisted [her] knee at work.” 

Dr. Finger found that she was disabled from work for approximately eight weeks beginning 

October 1, 2013. The Board has held, however, that when a physician’s opinion on causal 

relationship consists only of checking “yes” to a form question, without explanation or rationale, 

that opinion has little probative value and is insufficient to establish a claim.17 While Dr. Finger 

noted on the form that appellant twisted her knee while working, he did not provide any medical 

reasoning explaining how or why the twisting of her knee resulted in the diagnosed conditions 

and thus did not support a causation finding.18

 14 See A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004) (medical evidence that does not offer 

an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal 

relationship). 

15 Id. 

16 Id. 

17 Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340 (2003). 

18 A medical report is of limited probative value on a given medical question if it is unsupported by medical 

rationale. See K.D., Docket No. 14-1781 (issued August 14, 2015); T.F., 58 ECAB 126 (2006). 
7

In a disability certificate dated November 19, 2013, Dr. Finger determined that appellant 

could resume work without restrictions. In a progress report dated November 19, 2013, he 

diagnosed a knee and leg sprain/strain and a tear of the medial cartilage or meniscus of the knee. 

As Dr. Finger did not offer any opinion on the cause of appellant’s condition, his reports are of 

diminished probative value on the issue of causal relationship.19

On April 25, 2014 Dr. Jarit indicated that appellant would be off work after surgery from 

May 14 to 28, 2014. In a form report dated December 12, 2014, he obtained a history of 

appellant tripping on her way from her office to her den while working at home. Dr. Jarit 

diagnosed a medial and lateral meniscal tear status post a partial medial and lateral 

meniscectomy. He signed below a statement that work activities described resulted in the 

diagnosed condition. Dr. Jarit did not, however, provide a medical basis for his finding of 

causation. Medical evidence that states a conclusion but does not offer any rationalized medical 

explanation regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the 

issue of causal relationship.20

On appeal appellant’s counsel contends that OWCP did not properly review or evaluate 

the medical evidence. He asserts that she described a twisting injury that resulted in the 

diagnosed condition and that a proper review of the medical evidence substantiates causation. 

Appellant, however, has the burden to submit a well-reasoned medical report based on an 

accurate history explaining how the work incident caused a diagnosed medical condition.21 As 

discussed, she failed to submit a rationalized medical opinion supporting that her right knee 

condition was causally related to the September 30, 2013 work incident. Consequently, 

appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish an employment-related traumatic injury. 

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 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 that she 

sustained an injury on September 30, 2013 in the performance of duty. 

 19 R.E., Docket No. 10-679 (issued November 16, 2010); K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007). 

20 See J.F., Docket No. 09-1061 (issued November 17, 2009); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006). 

21 See D.B., Docket No. 14-1815 (issued December 16, 2014). 
8

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 9, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 23, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board