United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Lafayette, LA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0069

Issued: May 9, 2018

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 October 11, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 1, 2017 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.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish that her diagnosed 

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and right cubital tunnel syndrome are causally related to the 

accepted factors of her federal employment.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The record provided to the Board includes evidence received after OWCP issued its September 1, 2017 decision. 

The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to the evidence that was in the case record at the time of OWCP’s final decision. 

Therefore, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1).
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 7, 2017 appellant, then a 56-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) for carpal tunnel and cubital tunnel (“ulnar nerve”) syndromes, which she 

attributed to her federal employment. She identified March 3, 2017 as the date she first realized 

her condition was employment related. 

A January 31, 2017 electromyography and nerve conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) study

revealed moderately severe median nerve entrapment across both wrists, and mild ulnar nerve 

entrapment across the right elbow.3

By development letter dated March 14, 2017, OWCP informed appellant that she had not 

submitted sufficient evidence to support her claim. First, it noted that the diagnostic study was 

insufficient to establish a medical condition due to her employment. OWCP advised appellant to 

submit a narrative report from her physician, which included a rationalized medical opinion. It

also requested additional information regarding employment factor(s) allegedly responsible for her 

claimed condition(s), as well as information regarding any outside activities, and/or prior injuries 

to her upper extremities. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the requested factual and 

medical evidence. 

By letter dated March 27, 2017, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s 

claim, contending that the evidence presented did not demonstrate that her carrier duties caused 

her claimed injury/accident. It noted that her physician was still determining the cause of her 

condition. The employing establishment also provided a description of appellant’s carrier duties, 

which included casing letters/flats, pulling cased mail, and street delivery on her assigned route 

(No. 3047).4

On March 31, 2017 OWCP forwarded the employing establishment’s March 27, 2017 

letter of controversion to appellant for her review and comments. 

In a report dated April 13, 2017, Dr. Charles A. Olivier, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, examined appellant and diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and right cubital 

tunnel syndrome (right ulnar nerve lesion).5 He advised her to wear splints. Dr. Oliver also noted 

that appellant may need surgical release for carpal tunnel syndrome and right cubital tunnel

syndrome. Additionally, he indicated that her carpal tunnel syndrome and cubital tunnel syndrome 

were related to her mail carrier job. 

By decision dated May 10, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that she had 

not established the factual component of her claim. Appellant had not provided the requested 

information regarding the employment-related activities she believed that either caused or 

 

3 Dr. Michael A. Puente, a Board-certified neurologist, interpreted the January 31, 2017 EMG/NCV testing results.

4 OWCP also received a city carrier position description dated August 15, 2005. 

5 Dr. Olivier also diagnosed cervical spondylosis, without myelopathy, or radiculopathy. He noted that appellant 

had previously undergone neck surgery after a “[motor vehicle accident] 2007.” Dr. Olivier also noted that she had 

undergone additional neck surgery on July 13, 2016. 
3

contributed to her condition. OWCP further found that Dr. Olivier’s April 13, 2017 report did not 

contain a well-reasoned medical opinion supporting that her diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome

was related to duties of her federal employment.

On June 12, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s May 10, 2017 decision. 

In a June 20, 2017 statement, appellant explained that she had worked as a carrier for the 

employing establishment for 27 years. Her duties included separating mail flats, casing, mail 

delivery, walking, and pulling. Appellant indicated that she had visited a physician to find out 

what caused the numbness in her hands and fingers, and was told that she needed surgery on her 

neck. She had the surgery, but still felt numbness in her hands and fingers. Appellant noted that

Dr. Olivier had opined that her carpal tunnel syndrome was job related due to the length of time 

she had been doing the same type of work. 

Appellant resubmitted the January 31, 2017 EMG/NCV study results, as well as

Dr. Olivier’s April 13, 2017 report. 

By decision dated September 1, 2017, OWCP evaluated the merits of appellant’s claim and 

found that she had established both the factual and medical components of fact of injury. However, 

appellant’s claim remained denied because the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that 

the diagnosed medical conditions were causally related to the accepted work factors. OWCP 

specifically noted that, although Dr. Olivier stated that her medical conditions were related to her 

mail carrier job, he did not provide a well-reasoned medical opinion with complete and accurate 

history of injury, objective findings, and a medical explanation supporting how the work factors 

caused the diagnosed conditions. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

A claimant seeking benefits under FECA6 has the burden of proof to establish the essential 

elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence, 

including that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any specific 

condition or disability claimed is causally related to the employment injury.7

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit: (1) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence 

of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) a factual statement identifying 

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

disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally 

related to the identified employment factors.8

 

6 Supra note 1.

7 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996).

8 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
4

Causal relationship is a medical question, which generally requires rationalized medical 

opinion evidence to resolve the issue.9 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal 

relationship between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors must be 

based on a complete factual and medical background.10 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must 

be expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by 

medical rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and 

appellant’s specific employment factors.11

ANALYSIS

Appellant alleged that she sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and right cubital 

tunnel syndrome due to factors of her federal employment. OWCP denied her claim, finding that 

she had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish causal relationship. The Board finds 

that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome

and right cubital tunnel syndrome were caused or aggravated by factors of her federal employment.

The January 31, 2017 diagnostic EMG/NCV study did not address the cause of the reported 

bilateral median nerve and right ulnar nerve abnormalities. 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.12 Accordingly, the January 31, 2017 EMG/NCV study is insufficient 

to satisfy appellant’s burden of proof. 

In his April 13, 2017 report, Dr. Olivier diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and 

right cubital tunnel syndrome, as well as cervical spondylosis. He opined that appellant’s carpal 

tunnel syndrome and cubital tunnel syndrome were “related to her mail carrier job.” However,

Dr. Olivier did not identify the specific employment activities he believed that either caused or 

contributed to her diagnosed upper extremity conditions. He also did not provide any rationale for 

his expressed opinion that the conditions were “related to [appellant’s] mail carrier job.” As noted, 

a physician’s opinion on causal relationship must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background, and must be supported by medical rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship 

between the diagnosed condition(s) and appellant’s specific employment factors.13 As Dr. Olivier 

neither identified her specific employment duties, nor explained how her diagnosed upper 

extremity conditions were employment related, his April 13, 2017 report is insufficient to establish 

causal relationship.14

 

9 See Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996). 

10 Supra note 8.

11 Id.

12 Willie M. Miller, 53 ECAB 697(2002).

13 Supra note 8.

14 Id.
5

As appellant has not submitted any rationalized medical evidence to establish causal 

relationship, she has not met her 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 failed to meet her burden of proof to establish that her 

diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and right cubital tunnel syndrome are causally related 

to factors of her federal employment.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 1, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 9, 2018 

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