United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Northvale, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1906 

Issued: January 7, 2016 

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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 18, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 8, 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 his burden of proof to establish an occupational 

disease in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 22, 2015 appellant, then a 55-year-old mail carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained a bilateral knee condition in the performance of 

duty. He claimed that walking at work aggravated his condition. Appellant noted that he first 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

became aware of his condition and its relation to his federal employment on September 9, 2013. 

He retired on May 1, 2015. 

In a March 25, 2015 report, Dr. Raphael Longobardi, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, advised that appellant had been under his care since January 24, 2013 for knee pain. He 

detailed appellant’s past surgical history and opined that his job requirements of standing and 

walking had some causation with the progression of his arthrosis in the meniscectomized knee, 

but the extent could not be determined. 

By letter dated July 17, 2015, OWCP advised appellant of the type of evidence needed to 

establish his claim. Appellant was notified that he had 30 days from the date of the letter to 

submit responsive evidence. 

In an August 4, 2015 response to an OWCP questionnaire, appellant advised that his 

route was approximately nine miles. He contended that he walked up to six and a half hours a 

day for five to six days per week. Appellant noted that in his 32 years of work for the employing 

establishment he underwent five knee surgeries and that the more he walked the worse his knee 

became. He alleged that he had no prior leg problems before he began work for the employing 

establishment and reiterated that this condition was work related. 

On March 23, 2015 Dr. Longobardi advised that appellant was one year post left total 

knee replacement and eight months post excision of heterotrophic ossification of the left knee. 

He noted that appellant was able to return to work, walk, and stand without difficulty. 

Examination of the right knee revealed neutral alignment, no swelling, no effusion, no erythema, 

a well-healed surgical line, no pain to palpation, no tenderness, extension stopping at 0 degrees, 

and flexion to 110 degrees. Examination of the left knee revealed mild genu varum, no swelling, 

no effusion, no erythema, no ecchymosis, nonspecific tenderness on palpation, extension 

stopping at 0 degrees, and flexion to 115 degrees. An x-ray of the left knee revealed 

anatomically acceptable position alignment of total knee prosthetic compromise with no obvious 

evidence of loosening, change in position, or change in alignment. Dr. Longobardi reiterated his 

diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis and his opinion that appellant’s job requirements of standing and 

walking had some causation with the progression of his arthrosis but he could not determine to 

what extent. 

By decision dated September 8, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because the 

medical evidence was insufficient to establish that he sustained an injury causally related to 

factors of his employment. 

On appeal appellant argues that his knee condition was work related. He reiterates that 

he walked nine miles per day for 32 years and that his knees were perfect before he began work 

for the employing establishment. Appellant also notes that his knee condition forced him to 

retire. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden 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 timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any 
3

disabilities and/or specific conditions for which compensation is claimed are causally related to 

the employment injury.2

 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.3

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

an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. To establish 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.4

 

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

causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 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.5

 

The weight of medical evidence is determined by its reliability, its probative value, its 

convincing quality, the care of analysis manifested and the medical rationale expressed in 

support of the physician’s opinion.6 

ANALYSIS 

There is no dispute 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 medical evidence is 

insufficient to establish that factors of his employment caused or aggravated appellant’s bilateral 

knee condition. 

In his March 23, 2015 report, Dr. Longobardi advised that appellant was one year post 

left total knee replacement and eight months post excision of heterotrophic ossification of the left 

knee. He noted that appellant was able to return to work, walk, and stand without difficulty. 

Dr. Longobardi assessed knee osteoarthritis and opined that appellant’s job requirements of 

standing and walking had some causation with the progression of his arthrosis in the 

meniscectomized knee but the extent could not be determined. Likewise, in his March 25, 2015 

report, he opined that appellant’s job requirements of standing and walking had some causation 

with the progression of his arthrosis in the left knee but the extent could not be determined. 

These reports are not sufficiently rationalized as they do not explain the mechanics by which 

workplace walking and standing aggravated appellant’s condition. The Board has long held that 

 2 Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

3 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

4 R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008); Ernest St. Pierre, 51 ECAB 623 (2000). 

5 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); supra note 3. 

6

 James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991). 
4

medical opinions not containing rationale on causal relation are of diminished probative value 

and are generally insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.7

 

On appeal appellant disagrees with OWCP’s decision and reiterates that his condition 

was job related. However, the 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.8

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 an 

occupational disease in the performance of duty. 

 7 Carolyn F. Allen, 47 ECAB 240 (1995). 

8 See supra note 5. 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 September 8, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 7, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board