United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PRIORITY ANNEX, 

Oak Creek, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1327

Issued: December 31, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 25, 2018 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an April 2, 2018 

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an injury to her left 

knee or ankle causally related to the accepted March 2, 2017 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 8, 2017 appellant, then a 50-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that, at 1:25 a.m. on March 2, 2017, she sustained an injury to her left lower 

leg after she fell to the ground. The employing establishment noted that she did not submit medical 

evidence in support of her claim and asserted that she continued to work following the incident. It 

did not challenge that the incident occurred in the performance of duty. The employing 

establishment advised that appellant’s duty hours were “as needed.”

In a June 16, 2017 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional 

factual and medical evidence in support of her claim, including a detailed description of how her 

injury occurred and a report from her attending physician addressing causal relationship between 

a diagnosed condition and the identified work incident. It afforded her 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence.

By decision dated July 17, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim. It 

found that she had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish a diagnosed condition 

causally related to the March 2, 2017 work incident. OWCP noted that appellant had not

responded to its June 16, 2017 development letter.

Thereafter, appellant submitted a June 29, 2017 note from Dr. Sean C. Tracy, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Tracy opined that she should sit more than half of the time and 

not lift over 10 pounds pending surgery. In a July 17, 2017 return to work activity prescription 

form, he indicated that appellant required left knee surgery and found that she was unable to work 

for three weeks. 

Appellant on August 11, 2017 requested a telephonic hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative. 

In reports dated September 22 and October 11, 2017, Dr. Tracy provided work restrictions. 

On November 7, 2017 he found that appellant could resume work with no limitations. 

During the hearing, held on January 25, 2018, appellant testified that she was walking to 

her car after her work shift when she slipped on ice or snow, twisting her ankle and injuring her 

left knee. She was parked in an employee-only lot. Appellant notified a supervisor of the incident 

the following morning when she arrived at work. She underwent surgery to repair a torn meniscus. 

Subsequent to the telephonic hearing, appellant submitted a magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) scan study of the left knee, obtained on June 20, 2017. The study revealed mild 

degeneration of the posterior medial meniscus, mild-to-moderate suprapatellar effusion, mild 

patellar chondromalacia, a Baker’s cyst, and a benign lesion. 
3

In a June 29, 2017 report, Dr. Tracy evaluated appellant for left knee pain that began “about 

four months ago when [appellant] was at work and slipped on some snow outside of her job.” On 

examination, he found some fluid and tenderness of the posteromedial joint line. Dr. Tracy 

recommended a left medial meniscus debridement and chondroplasty. On June 5, 2017 he 

indicated that appellant should remain off work pending surgery scheduled for July 11, 2017. 

On July 11, 2017 Dr. Tracy performed a left knee loose body removal and chondroplasty. 

He submitted progress reports dated July 17, August 21, and October 19, 2017 and return to work 

forms addressing disability dated July 17, August 7 and 21, September 22, and 

December 11, 2017. The record also contains reports from a physician assistant dated August 7, 

September 22, and December 11, 2017.3 

By decision dated April 2, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the July 17, 

2017 decision. He found that the factual evidence established that appellant twisted her knee on 

March 2, 2017 in the performance of duty, but that the medical evidence was insufficient to show 

that she sustained a diagnosed condition as a result of the accepted employment incident.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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.5 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.6

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There 

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must submit 

sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the 

time, place, and in the manner alleged.7 Second, the employee must submit medical evidence to 

establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.8

 

3 The employing establishment, in a February 20, 2018 letter, noted that appellant had described the March 2, 2018 

incident in an accident report of that date as twisting her knee and ankle, but not falling onto the ground. It noted that 

she worked until June 8, 2017 and did not obtain medical treatment until June 29, 2017.

4 Supra note 2. 

5 See E.B., Docket No. 17-0164 (issued June 14, 2018).

6 See P.S., Docket No. 17-0939 (issued June 15, 2018).

7 See V.J., Docket No. 18-0452 (issued July 3, 2018).

8

Id.
4

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

establish causal relationship 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 incident

identified by the claimant.9

ANALYSIS

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

causally related to the accepted March 2, 2017 employment incident. 

OWCP accepted that the employment incident of March 2, 2017 occurred as alleged and 

that appellant was in the performance of duty at the time that she twisted her knee in the parking 

lot of the employing establishment reserved for its employees. It denied her claim because she did 

not submit sufficient medical evidence supporting a medical diagnosis in connection with the 

claimed March 2, 2017 employment injury. 

Dr. Tracy provided numerous reports and return to work forms dated June 29 to 

December 11, 2017 addressing the extent of appellant’s disability and providing work restrictions. 

He did not, however, render an opinion on the cause of her disability or relate a diagnosed 

condition to the March 2, 2017 employment incident. Medical evidence that does not offer an 

opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of 

causal relationship.10 

On June 29, 2017 Dr. Tracy obtained a history of appellant experiencing left knee pain 

beginning four months earlier after she slipped on snow outside her workplace. He recommended 

a chondroplasty and debridement of the left medial meniscus. Dr. Tracy did not address whether 

the accepted March 2, 2017 work incident caused or aggravated a diagnosed condition or resulted 

in the need for surgery, and thus his opinion is of little probative value.11

Appellant also submitted a left knee MRI scan and reports from a physician assistant. 

Diagnostic studies lack probative value on the issue of causal relationship as they do not address 

whether the employment incident caused any of the diagnosed conditions.12 Additionally, reports 

from physician assistants lack probative value as they are not considered physicians under FECA.13

 

9 See H.B., Docket No. 18-0781 (issued September 5, 2018).

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

11 See D.M., Docket No. 16-1885 (issued February 15, 2017).

12 See C.D., Docket No. 17-2011 (issued November 6, 2018).

13 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); see also A.M., Docket No. 18-0542 (issued November 1, 2018).
5

Appellant has the burden of proof to submit rationalized medical evidence establishing an 

injury causally related to the accepted March 2, 2017 employment incident.14 She has not 

submitted such evidence and thus has not met her burden of proof.15

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 an injury to her 

left knee or ankle causally related to the accepted March 2, 2017 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 2, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 31, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

14 See D.T., Docket No. 17-1734 (issued January 18, 2018).

15 See D.S., Docket No. 18-0061 (issued May 29, 2018).