United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.B., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Alexandria, LA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1347 

Issued: March 8, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 8, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 16, 2015 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 merits of this claim. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish a right hip condition 

causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

 1

 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from December 16, 2015, the date of OWCP’s last decision was 

June 13, 2016. Since using June 14, 2016, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the postmark is considered the date of filing. The date of the 

U.S. Postal Service postmark is June 8, 2016, rendering the appeal timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1). 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 4, 2015 appellant, then a 60-year-old retired city letter carrier, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained a right hip condition in the 

performance of his work duties. He noted that he first became aware of his condition on July 28, 

2015 and its relation to his employment on August 4, 2015. Appellant retired on 

November 22, 2014. 

In an August 4, 2015 statement, appellant indicated that he had worked as a city letter 

carrier for 32 years and retired on November 22, 2014. His normal duties consisted of driving, 

standing, walking, bending, stooping, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, twisting, and turning, 

which he performed eight hours a day for five days a week. Appellant noted his belief that his 

repetitive work caused the pain on the right side of his body. He advised that his hobby was 

walking. 

In an August 4, 2015 report, Dr. Roy Berkowitz, a general surgeon, noted that appellant 

worked as city mail carrier for 32 years until his November 2014 retirement. In February 2015, 

he started having right hip pain which started as occasional every few days and progressed to the 

point where it hurt daily. Dr. Berkowitz noted appellant’s medical course, provided examination 

findings and diagnosed osteoarthritis of the right hip. He reported that a city mail carrier 

typically walks 10 to 12 miles a day and works five to six days per week, yielding 50 miles of 

walking per week. Dr. Berkowitz indicated that appellant had been doing this for 32 years and 

has walked approximately 80,000 miles in his career. Although appellant’s pain did not become 

constant until after he retired, arthritis of the hip takes more than just a few months to develop. 

Dr. Berkowitz opined that if appellant’s history was correct, he had an employment-related 

chronic occupational injury. 

In a September 28, 2015 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the factual and medical 

evidence needed to establish his claim, including a detailed narrative report from his physician 

which included a history of the injury and a medical explanation with objective evidence of how 

those work factors would cause the claimed condition. Clarification was also requested as to 

how the February 2015 injury was related to his job duties after he retired on November 22, 2014 

and how often he engaged in his hobby of walking. It afforded him 30 days to submit such 

evidence. 

In an October 13, 2015 letter, appellant responded to OWCP’s questions. He indicated 

that after retiring, in January 2015 he started walking about three miles two to three days a week. 

However, when appellant noted that his hip was hurting, he decreased the amount of time he 

walked. He is now unable to walk for long periods of time. 

Medical reports from Dr. Berkowitz dated September 8 and October 13, 2015 diagnosed 

osteoarthritis of the right hip. An August 4, 2015 x-ray of his right hip was interpreted as 

“moderate degenerative change of the femoral head.” 

In an October 13, 2015 letter, Dr. Berkowitz noted that appellant walked approximately 

80,000 miles in his postal career and that osteoarthritis was most often caused by use. He 

indicated that osteoarthritis was a degenerative disease and opined it was caused by the amount 
3

of walking appellant did for the employing establishment. He noted that an x-ray of his right hip 

showed “moderate degenerative change of the femoral head.” Dr. Berkowitz stated that there 

was no alterative explanation for appellant’s injured hip other than his having walked so far 

while working for the employing establishment for 32 years. 

By decision dated December 16, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that 

although he had established the implicated employment factors, the medical evidence of record 

was insufficient to establish that he sustained an injury in the performance of duty. It noted that 

appellant retired on November 22, 2014, but did not notice his hip pain until February 2015. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his 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.3

 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.4 

Whether an employee actually sustained an injury in the performance of duty begins with 

an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established.5 To establish fact of injury in an 

occupational disease claim, an employee must submit: (1) a factual statement identifying 

employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the 

disease or condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or 

condition for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the 

diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the employee.6

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is generally rationalized 

medical opinion evidence. Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which 

includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is causal relationship 

between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors. 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 relationship between the diagnosed condition and the 

specific employment factors identified by the claimant.7 

 3 Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

4 See Irene St. John, 50 ECAB 521 (1999); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

5 See S.P., 59 ECAB 184, 188 (2007). 

6 See Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); see also P.W., Docket No. 10-2402 (issued August 5, 2011). 

7 Solomon Polen, 51 ECAB 341 (2000). 
4

ANALYSIS 

It is undisputed that appellant walked as a part of his job. Therefore, the Board finds that 

the first component of fact of injury is established. However, the Board finds that the medical 

evidence of record is insufficient to establish that this factor of his federal employment caused or 

aggravated appellant’s right hip condition. 

In his August 4, 2015 report, Dr. Berkowitz noted that appellant worked as city mail 

carrier for 32 years doing numerous amounts of walking during his career and had retired in 

November 2014. He diagnosed osteoarthritis of the right hip. Dr. Berkowitz indicated that the 

right hip pain started in February 2015. He opined appellant had an employment-related chronic 

occupational injury. Dr. Berkowitz indicated that although appellant’s pain did not become 

constant until after he retired, arthritis of the hip takes more than just a few months to develop. 

In his October 13, 2015 letter, he noted that osteoarthritis was a degenerative disease and was 

most often caused by use. Dr. Berkowitz opined that appellant’s osteoarthritis of the right hip 

was caused by the amount of walking appellant did for the employing establishment over a 32-

year period and that there was no alterative explanation for appellant’s injured hip. These 

reports, however, are insufficiently rationalized as they do not explain the mechanics by which 

workplace walking and standing versus normal everyday walking and standing caused or 

aggravated appellant’s condition. The Board has long held that medical opinions not containing 

rationale on causal relationship are of diminished probative value and are generally insufficient 

to meet appellant’s burden of proof.8

Accordingly, this claim is deficient because appellant has not submitted medical evidence 

explaining how the established work factors caused or contributed to the diagnosed condition. 

As noted, causal relationship is a medical question that must be established by probative medical 

opinion from a physician.9

 Because appellant has not provided such medical opinion evidence in 

this case, 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 a right hip 

condition causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

 8 J.M., Docket No. 15-1906 (issued January 7, 2016); Carolyn F. Allen, 47 ECAB 240 (1995). 

9 See Solomon Polen, 51 ECAB 341 (2000) (rationalized medical evidence must relate specific employment 

factors identified by the claimant to the claimant’s condition, with stated reasons by a physician). See also S.T., 

Docket No. 11-237 (issued September 9, 2011). 
5

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated December 16, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: March 8, 2017 

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