United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Mamaroneck, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1645

Issued: March 8, 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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 30, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 20, 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 this case.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that her left knee 

internal derangement was causally related to the accepted March 29, 2018 employment injury.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the July 20, 2018 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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 April 10, 2018 appellant, then a 43-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on March 29, 2018, she sustained a left knee injury when 

she was struck by a metal object while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim

form, the employing establishment indicated that appellant stopped work on March 30, 2018 and 

returned to work on April 1, 2018. By decision dated July 20, 2018, OWCP accepted appellant’s 

claim for left knee contusion.

In both a medical report and a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated April 4, 2018,

Dr. Cathleen Bechan-Dugan, Board-certified in family medicine, diagnosed a “left knee injury.”

She indicated that appellant could return to work with restrictions on April 4, 2018.

In a letter dated April 18, 2018, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s 

claim regarding Dr. Bechan-Dugan’s April 4, 2018 opinion that appellant could return to work in 

a modified-duty capacity with restrictions.

By development letter dated April 20, 2018, OWCP noted that appellant’s injury initially

appeared to be a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time from work. Consequently, 

it administratively approved a limited amount of medical expenses. However, OWCP indicated 

that the case was reopened for consideration because the employing establishment had challenged

her claim. It advised appellant on the deficiencies of her claim. OWCP requested additional 

factual and medical evidence and provided a questionnaire for her completion. It afforded 

appellant 30 days to submit the requested information.

In a medical report dated March 29, 2018, received by OWCP on May 14, 2018,

Dr. Jennifer Galjour, a physician specializing in emergency medicine, examined appellant and 

diagnosed left knee contusion and left knee pain.

By letter dated May 17, 2018, OWCP advised appellant that their initial development letter 

dated April 20, 2018 had not been mailed to her correct address, therefore she would be afforded 

another 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

In a progress report dated April 4, 2018, received by OWCP on June 11, 2018, Dr. BechanDugan indicated that appellant was working without restrictions and diagnosed “left knee injury.”

In a progress report dated April 9, 2018, received by OWCP on June 15, 2018, Dr. Juan 

Gonzalez, a physician specializing in emergency medicine, noted a diagnosis of left knee 

contusion.

In a medical report dated June 20, 2018, Dr. Wilson Arnold, Board-certified in orthopedic 

surgery, examined appellant and diagnosed an unspecified internal derangement of the left knee. 

He indicated that appellant could not return to work because she was disabled.

On July 11, 2018 appellant filed a claim for leave without pay (LWOP) (Form CA-7) for 

the dates May 12 to June 22, 2018 for the diagnosed medical condition of left knee internal 

derangement.
3

In a subsequent development letter regarding the claim for LWOP dated July 20, 2018, 

OWCP advised appellant that the evidence received to date was insufficient to support her claim 

for compensation, and additional evidence was needed to establish disability for work during the 

entire period claimed. It noted that appellant’s physician was required to submit a complete and 

comprehensive narrative report, which included a history of her injury and a thorough explanation 

with objective findings, as to how the accepted employment-related condition was solely the 

reason she was no longer able to perform the duties of her position when she stopped work on 

March 30, 2018. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the requested information.

By decision dated July 20, 2018, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left knee contusion.

Also, by separate decision dated July 20, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for 

compensation with regard to the diagnosed medical condition of left knee internal derangement. 

It found that she had not submitted a well-reasoned medical opinion supported by objective 

findings as to how the accepted employment event either directly caused or aggravated the 

diagnosed medical condition of left knee internal derangement.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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 

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

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

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.6 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 employee.7 

Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment, 

 

3 Supra note 1.

4

J.P., Docket No. 18-1165 (issued January 15, 2019); Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005); Anthony P. Silva, 55 

ECAB 179 (2003).

5

J.P., id. See Elizabeth H. Kramm (Leonard O. Kramm), 57 ECAB 117 (2005); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 

530 (2004).

6 G.N., Docket No. 18-0403 (issued September 13, 2018); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

7 K.V., Docket No. 18-0723 (issued November 9, 2018); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. 

Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994).
4

nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or 

incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.8

ANALYSIS

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

knee internal derangement was causally related to the accepted March 29, 2018 employment 

injury.

Appellant’s claim has been accepted for the condition of left knee contusion; however, she 

subsequently filed a claim for wage loss from May 12 to June 22, 2018 for the diagnosed medical 

condition of left knee internal derangement. With regard to the diagnosed medical condition of 

left knee internal derangement, the only medical report of record that diagnosed internal 

derangement of the left knee was the June 20, 2018 report from Dr. Arnold. Dr. Arnold diagnosed 

left knee internal derangement, but provided no opinion regarding causal relationship. Medical 

evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of the employee’s condition is of no 

probative value on the issue of causal relationship.

9

 A medical opinion should reflect a correct 

history and offer a medically sound explanation by the physician of how the specific employment 

incident physiologically caused or aggravated the diagnosed condition.10 As Dr. Arnold’s report 

is deficient in this regard, his report is of no probative value.

11

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

her left knee internal derangement was causally related to the accepted March 29, 2018 

employment injury as she failed to submit sufficient medical evidence setting forth a rationalized 

opinion on the issue of causal relationship.

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 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 that her left 

knee internal derangement was causally related to the accepted March 29, 2018 employment 

injury.

 

8

J.P., supra note 4; Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997).

9 See S.M., Docket No. 18-1547 (issued January 28, 2019). 

10 R.K., Docket No. 17-0151 (issued December 12, 2018); J.M., Docket No. 17-1002 (issued August 22, 2017).

11 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 20, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 8, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, 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