United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Winder, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-1376 

Issued: September 22, 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 5, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 15, 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 an injury causally 

related to a February 17, 2017 employment incident. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP after the May 15, 2017 decision was 

issued. The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final 

decision. Therefore, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review this additional evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 22, 2017 appellant, a 56-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that she injured “her shoulder” on February 17, 2017 while she was 

delivering a parcel. She stated that her shoe caught a ridge in a driveway and she “fell on her 

shoulder.” Appellant stopped work on February 21, 2017, and resumed work the following day 

with restrictions. 

In a February 22, 2017 report, Dr. Darrell Scales, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

asserted that appellant was seen for right shoulder pain and noted that she “has had this in the 

past.” He stated that she recalled back in 2008 or 2009 that she was being seen at Athens 

Orthopedic and had steroid injections with Center for Physical Therapy and got better. 

Appellant had slowly gotten worse over the past year or so and had a little bit of worsening over 

the Christmas holiday when she delivered a lot of packages at work. Dr. Scales indicated that 

more recently, she had an acute injury on February 17, 2017 when she was going into a 

driveway, caught her foot, and then fell forward. Appellant fell onto both arms and upper 

extremities while carrying packages. Dr. Scales reviewed her right shoulder x-ray and noted that 

there were some changes to the greater tuberosity to suggest previous rotator cuff tendinitis and 

insertional tendinitis. His assessment of appellant’s x-ray was “probable history of rotator cuff 

tendinitis to the right shoulder, otherwise normal radiographs of the right shoulder.” Dr. Scales 

indicated that she had what appeared to be a work-related injury of the right shoulder with 

“possibility” of a rotator cuff tear versus internal derangement. He ordered a right shoulder 

magnetic resonance imaging scan, and advised that appellant was unable to work on 

February 21, 2017 because of pain due to a right shoulder injury. 

In a February 22, 2017 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Scales diagnosed right 

shoulder pain and advised that appellant could return to work with restrictions. 

On February 24, 2017 appellant accepted a limited-duty job offer as a modified rural 

carrier, which required up to eight hours of sitting and one to two hours of walking. Her duties 

included processing second notices, answering telephones, and performing administrative duties 

as needed. 

In an April 7, 2017 claim development letter, OWCP advised appellant that the medical 

evidence received thus far was insufficient to establish entitlement to compensation benefits. It 

requested a narrative medical report from appellant’s attending physician, and afforded her at 

least 30 days to submit the required medical evidence. 

In response, appellant resubmitted Dr. Scales’ February 22, 2017 report. 

By decision dated May 15, 2017, OWCP accepted that the February 17, 2017 

employment incident occurred as alleged, but denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim because 

she failed to submit medical evidence containing a diagnosis in connection with the injury or 

event(s). Thus, it concluded that she had not established the medical component of fact of 

injury. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

A claimant seeking benefits under FECA3 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.4

To determine if an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Generally, fact of 

injury consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The 

first component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that 

allegedly occurred.5 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a 

personal injury.6

 An employee may establish that an injury occurred in the performance of duty 

as alleged, but fail to establish that the disability or specific condition for which compensation is 

being claimed is causally related to the injury.7

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence. The opinion of the physician must 

be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, 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 employee.8

 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that the February 17, 2017 employment incident occurred as alleged. 

The issue is whether appellant sustained an injury as a result. The Board finds that she has not 

meet her burden of proof to establish that she sustained an injury related to the February 17, 2017 

employment incident. 

In his February 22, 2017 report, Dr. Scales diagnosed right shoulder pain and noted the 

“possibility” of a rotator cuff tear versus internal derangement. The Board finds that Dr. Scales’ 

 3 See supra note 1. 

4

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

5 Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

6 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). Causal relationship is a medical question that generally requires 

rationalized medical opinion evidence to resolve the issue. See Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996). A 

physician’s opinion on whether there is a causal relationship between the diagnosed condition and the implicated 

employment factor(s) must be based on a complete factual and medical background. Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 

345, 352 (1989). 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 factor(s). Id.

7 Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997). 

8 See O.W., Docket No. 09-2110 (issued April 22, 2010). 
4

notation of right shoulder pain is a description of a symptom rather than a clear diagnosis of the 

medical condition.9 The Board further finds that his mention of the “possibility” of a rotator cuff 

tear or internal derangement is speculative and equivocal in nature.10 For these reasons, 

Dr. Scales’ February 22, 2017 report and Form CA-17 are insufficient to establish a medical 

diagnosis in connection with appellant’s February 17, 2017 work-related fall. Consequently, 

appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish her claim because she has not submitted 

competent medical evidence addressing how the February 17, 2017 work incident caused or 

resulted in an 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(a) 

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 an injury 

causally related to a February 17, 2017 employment incident. 

 9 See P.S., Docket No. 12-1601 (issued January 2, 2013); C.F., Docket No. 08-1102 (issued October 10, 2008). 

10 Medical opinions that are speculative or equivocal in character are of little probative value. See Kathy A. 

Kelley, 55 ECAB 206 (2004). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 15, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 22, 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