United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

City of Industry, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0276 

Issued: April 12, 2016 

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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 30, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 29, 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 met her burden of proof to establish disability from 

August 10 to October 3, 2015 due to her February 20, 1996 employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 22, 1996 appellant, then a 33-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging injury at work on February 20, 1996 due to twisting and falling after 

stepping on a wet ceramic tile. She did not stop work, but began working in a limited-duty 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

position for the employing establishment without wage loss. OWCP accepted that appellant 

sustained a left ankle sprain, old bucket handle tear of her left medial meniscus, tear of her right 

lateral meniscus, and tear of her right medial meniscus.2

On September 13, 1996 appellant underwent surgery of her left knee area, including 

arthroscopic synovectomy with femoral chondroplasty, medial meniscectomy, and anterior 

cruciate ligament reconstruction. On April 27, 2001, October 4, 2002, and September 3, 2004 

additional chondroplasty and meniscectomy surgeries were carried out on her left knee. On 

May 9, 2007 appellant underwent right knee surgery, including arthroscopic synovectomy with 

resection of chronic anterior cruciate ligament tear stump, arthroscopic medial and lateral 

meniscoplasty (partial meniscectomy), and chondroplasty of the medial femoral condyle. These 

surgical procedures were authorized by OWCP. 

Appellant had stopped work on August 31, 2002 and received disability compensation on 

the daily rolls effective August 31, 2002. She received disability compensation on the periodic 

rolls effective September 8, 2002. Appellant later returned to limited-duty work and stopped 

receiving disability compensation effective August 31, 2008. 

On July 14, 2014 Dr. Paul D. Burton, an attending osteopath and Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, performed a bilateral total knee replacement. This surgery was also 

authorized by OWCP. 

Appellant stopped work on August 10, 2015 and filed a claim for compensation (Form 

CA-7) alleging disability from August 10 to October 3, 2015 due to her February 20, 1996 

employment injury.3

Appellant submitted an August 4, 2015 form report from Dr. Burton. Dr. Burton noted 

having evaluated her and that her next appointment was on September 22, 2015. He wrote: 

“Work status: temporary totally disabled.” In a narrative report dated August 4, 2015, 

Dr. Burton reported findings of his examination on that date, noting that appellant’s knee 

incisions were well healed and that she had excellent range of motion in her knees of 0 to 130 

degrees. There was no instability in her knees and no sign of infection at the surgery sites. 

Dr. Burton diagnosed bilateral osteoarthritis of the knees, status post bilateral total knee 

replacement, and history of metal allergy per patient. He indicated, that “[Appellant] is 

temporarily totally disabled.” 

In an August 27, 2015 letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional factual 

and medical evidence in support of her claim for disability from August 10 to October 3, 2015. 

In the report dated September 1, 2015, Dr. Thomas Schmalzried, an attending Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, indicated that appellant reported developing rashes on various parts 

of her body after undergoing bilateral total knee replacement surgery on July 14, 2014. He noted 

 2

 Appellant later received schedule awards for 19 percent permanent impairment of her left lower extremity and 

16 percent permanent impairment of her right lower extremity. 

3

 Appellant received disability compensation on the daily rolls beginning October 6, 2015. 
3

that he did not observe any lesions around her knees and that motor and sensory examination of 

her lower extremities was within normal limits. Dr. Schmalzried indicated that, “It should be 

recognized that there are many causes of rash and it cannot be assumed that the rash is due to the 

implanted total knee components.” In a September 15, 2015 note, he found that appellant could 

return to modified, sedentary work effective September 1, 2015.4

 

On September 22, 2015 Dr. Burton produced a form report in which he noted that 

appellant had permanent work restrictions of no kneeling, squatting, running, or jumping, and no 

prolonged sitting, walking, or standing. Appellant could not lift over 40 pounds and she could 

only work four hours per day. In a narrative report of the same date, Dr. Burton repeated these 

work restrictions and diagnosed bilateral osteoarthritis of the knees, status post bilateral total 

knee replacement, and history of metal allergy per patient. He indicated that, “There is 

reasonable evidence for an industrial causation for [appellant’s] bilateral knee osteoarthritis. She 

has had multiple operative interventions for industrial injuries and apportionment is not 

indicated.” Dr. Burton reported that he had nothing further to offer appellant and that treatment 

was being transferred to another physician. 

By decision dated October 29, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because she had 

failed to establish disability from August 10 to October 3, 2015 due to her February 20, 1996 

employment injury. It determined that the reports of the attending physicians did not contain 

sufficient medical rationale to support their opinions on causal relationship. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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 timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation period 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.5 The medical evidence required to establish a causal 

relationship between a claimed period of disability and an employment injury is rationalized 

medical opinion evidence. 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.6

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that on February 20, 1996 appellant sustained a left ankle sprain, old 

bucket handle tear of her left medial meniscus, tear of her right lateral meniscus, and tear of her 

 4

 In a September 21, 2015 report, Dr. Schmalzried posited that it was difficult to relate an allergic reaction to 

implanted surgical hardware. 

5 J.F., Docket No. 09-1061 (issued November 17, 2009). 

6 See E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 2010). 
4

right medial meniscus. It authorized several left and right knee surgeries between 1996 and 

2014. Appellant stopped work on August 10, 2015 and claimed disability from August 10 to 

October 3, 2015 due to her February 20, 1996 employment injury. 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to submit sufficient medical evidence to 

establish disability from August 10 to October 3, 2015 due to her February 20, 1996 employment 

injury. 

Appellant submitted the August 4, 2015 form report in which Dr. Burton, indicated that 

her next appointment was on September 22, 2015 and noted, “Work status: temporary totally 

disabled.” In a narrative report dated August 4, 2015, Dr. Burton reported findings of his 

examination on that date, noting that her knee incisions were well healed and that she had 

excellent range of motion in her knees of 0 to 130 degrees. He indicated that, “[Appellant] is 

temporarily totally disabled.” The submission of this evidence does not support appellant’s 

claim for disability because Dr. Burton failed to provide any opinion on the cause of her 

disability. The Board has held that medical evidence which does not offer a clear opinion 

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

issue of causal relationship.7

In two September 22, 2015 reports, Dr. Burton indicated that appellant had permanent 

work restrictions of no kneeling, squatting, running, or jumping, and no prolonged sitting, 

walking, or standing, that she could not lift over 40 pounds, and that she could only work four 

hours per day. However, he did not provide a clear opinion that these work restrictions were 

necessitated by appellant’s February 20, 1996 employment injury. In the narrative report of the 

same date, Dr. Burton diagnosed bilateral osteoarthritis of the knees and history of metal allergy 

per patient and indicated that, “There is reasonable evidence for an industrial causation for 

[appellant’s] bilateral knee osteoarthritis. She has had multiple operative interventions for 

industrial injuries and apportionment is not indicated.” OWCP has not accepted bilateral knee 

osteoarthritis or a metal allergy related to appellant’s February 20, 1996 employment injury. 

Dr. Burton has not provided a rationalized medical opinion relating this condition to work 

factors. He did not provide any explanation for his opinion on this matter and the Board has held 

that 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.8

In the September 1, 2015 report from Dr. Schmalzried, appellant was reported as having 

developed a rash on various parts of her body after undergoing bilateral total knee replacement 

surgery on July 14, 2014. He noted that he did not observe any lesions around her knees and 

indicated, “It should be recognized that there are many causes of rash and it cannot be assumed 

that the rash is due to the implanted total knee components.” This report fails to provide any 

opinion that appellant had disability during the claimed period due to the February 20, 1996 

employment injury or the surgery approved in connection with the injury.9

 In a September 15, 

 7 See Charles H. Tomaszewski, 39 ECAB 461 (1988). 

8 C.M., Docket No. 14-88 (issued April 18, 2014). 

9 Id. 
5

2015 note, Dr. Schmalzried posited that she could return to modified, sedentary work effective 

September 1, 2015, but he did not identify the cause of this partial disability. 

On appeal, appellant argues that the medical evidence of record supports work-related 

disability for the period August 10 to October 3, 2015, but the Board has explained why the 

medical evidence does not establish work-related disability for this period. She 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 did not meet her burden of proof to establish disability 

from August 10 to October 3, 2015 due to her February 20, 1996 employment injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 29, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: April 12, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board