United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Oak Creek, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1274

Issued: February 6, 2019

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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 11, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 14, 2018 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 the case.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish right elbow 

conditions causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure

provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the 

time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal.” 

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on 

appeal. Id.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 1, 2018 appellant, then a 53-year-old group leader mail handler, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed a right elbow injury as a result 

of her repetitive federal employment duties. She asserted that her right elbow became sore after 

completing her workday, which included pushing and pulling mail containers, and lifting and 

throwing parcels and mail sacks. Appellant indicated that she first became aware of her claimed 

condition and its relation to her federal employment on February 26, 2018, as she only experienced 

the symptoms while working. She did not stop work. 

In a development letter dated March 20, 2018, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim and afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence and respond to its inquiries.

In response, appellant submitted a statement date stamped as received by the employing 

establishment on April 5, 2018, describing her assigned job duties. She described lifting parcels 

and mailbags weighing from 10 to 70 pounds onto a conveyor belt, lifting and throwing mail into 

containers, and pushing containers to and from staging areas. Appellant also submitted medical 

evidence. 

In a work status report dated March 2, 2018, Dr. Sharleen Leonard, an attending Boardcertified family practitioner, diagnosed right medial epicondylitis and ulnar neuropathy. In 

response to a question regarding whether appellant’s injury, illness, or condition was caused by 

her work, Dr. Leonard answered “[y]es.” She also checked a box marked “yes” on a duty status 

report (Form CA-17) dated March 2, 2018, in response to a question inquiring whether the history 

of injury provided by appellant corresponded with the described injury of right epicondylitis and 

right ulnar neuropathy caused by repetitive right elbow motions. Dr. Leonard made the same 

notations on form reports dated from March 7 to 28, 2018, and CA-17 forms dated March 7 

and 14, 2018. She prescribed a right elbow splint, medication, and occupational therapy.3 

Dr. Leonard also noted limitations on use of the right upper extremity at work. 

By decision dated May 14, 2018, OWCP accepted that the identified work factors occurred 

at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. However, it denied appellant’s claim, finding that 

the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between her

diagnosed right elbow conditions and the accepted factors of her federal employment.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

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

disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the 

 

3 Appellant participated in physical therapy treatments from March 12 to 27, 2018.
3

employment injury.4 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.5

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.6

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

evidence to resolve the issue.7 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.8 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.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that her 

diagnosed right elbow conditions are causally related to the accepted factors of her federal 

employment. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted form reports dated March 2 to 28, 2018 from

Dr. Leonard who diagnosed right medial epicondylitis and right ulnar neuropathy. Dr. Leonard 

responded “yes” to questions regarding whether the diagnosed conditions were related to 

appellant’s federal employment, including repetitive right upper extremity motions. The Board 

has held, however, that when a physician’s opinion on causal relationship consists only of checking

a box marked “yes” to a form question, without explanation or rationale, that opinion has limited 

probative value and is insufficient to establish a claim.10

 

4 F.S., Docket No. 12-0369 (issued September 20, 2012); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Elaine Pendleton, 

40 ECAB 1143, 1154 (1989).

5 A.D., Docket No. 17-1855 (issued February 26, 2018); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).

6 M.B., Docket No. 17-1999 (issued November 13, 2018); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

7 M.B., id. See Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996). 

8 Supra note 5. 

9

Id. 

10 M.O., Docket No. 18-1056 (issued November 6, 2018). See Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 3234 (2003).
4

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence sufficient to establish an 

injury causally related to the accepted employment factors, the Board finds that she has not met 

her burden of proof. 

On appeal, appellant contends that the claimed right elbow conditions were caused by the 

accepted work factors of throwing bags and pulling and pushing equipment. As set forth above, 

the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish causal relationship between the accepted 

work factors and appellant’s diagnosed medical conditions.

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 right elbow 

conditions causally related to factors of her federal employment.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 14, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: February 6, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board