United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT, Florence, AZ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0997

Issued: November 1, 2018

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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 16, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 5, 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish injury due to the 

accepted October 4, 2016 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 26, 2017 appellant, then a 39-year-old deportation officer, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained an injury at work on October 4, 2016 during 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

a training session on new handcuffing techniques. He asserted that he felt pain and a burning 

sensation in his right shoulder when his right arm was being placed behind his back to be 

handcuffed. Appellant did not stop work.

2

In a supporting statement, appellant indicated that, on October 4, 2016, he immediately 

told the trainer to stop when he felt the pain and burning sensation in his right shoulder as his right 

arm was being placed behind his back. He noted that he did not perform any more handcuffing 

exercises for the remainder of the class. Appellant asserted that he had not suffered any shoulder 

pain or injury prior to October 4, 2016. 

By a July 18, 2017 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional 

evidence in support of his claim, including a physician’s opinion supported by a medical 

explanation as to how the reported October 4, 2016 employment incident caused or aggravated a 

specific medical condition. It requested that he complete and return an attached questionnaire 

which posed various questions regarding the nature of his claimed October 4, 2016 employment 

injury. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit a response. Appellant did not respond within 

the allotted period.

By decision dated September 19, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an October 4, 

2016 employment injury.3 It determined that he established an October 4, 2016 employment 

incident in the form of having his right arm being placed behind his back to be handcuffed. 

However, OWCP further found that appellant failed to establish the medical component of the fact 

of injury because he failed to submit a medical report containing an opinion that a specific medical 

condition was diagnosed in connection with the October 4, 2016 employment incident. 

On February 2, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s September 19, 2017 

decision. In a January 19, 2018 letter, he discussed his efforts to obtain medical evidence in 

support of his claim. Appellant indicated that he still had pain in his right shoulder from the 

October 4, 2016 incident when his right arm was “cranked” behind his back.

Appellant submitted a July 28, 2017 report from Dr. William D. Prickett, an attending 

orthopedic surgeon, who indicated that appellant presented for an initial visit with a chief 

complaint of right shoulder pain. He reported that the pain had been present for about 10 months 

since an injury occurring at work when he was practicing handcuffing technique and his right arm 

was cranked behind his back, resulting in a sharp right shoulder pain. Dr. Prickett discussed the 

findings of the physical examination he conducted on July 28, 2017, noting positive right shoulder 

impingement testing and motor/sensory testing with no focal isolated deficits. He diagnosed right 

shoulder possible superior labral tear and recommended appellant undergo a magnetic resonance 

 

2 Although he filed an occupational disease claim, appellant claimed that he sustained an employment injury due 

to an incident occurring in a single workday/work shift on October 4, 2016. A traumatic injury refers to injury caused 

by a specific event or incident or series of incidents occurring within a single workday or work shift whereas an 

occupational disease refers to an injury produced by employment over a period longer than a single workday or shift. 

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q), (ee); Brady L. Fowler, 44 ECAB 343, 351 (1992). 

3 OWCP noted that appellant filed an occupational disease claim, but found that he was actually claiming a traumatic 

employment injury due to an incident occurring in a single workday/work shift on October 4, 2016. See supra note 2.
3

imaging (MRI) scan of his right shoulder. Dr. Prickett indicated that appellant could continue to 

full-duty work. 

The findings of an August 11, 2017 MRI scan of appellant’s right shoulder contained an 

impression of superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) tear involving the 12:00 and 5:00

o’clock positions without bony Bankart or Hill-Sachs lesion, intact mild superior subscapularis 

tendinitis, and moderate supraspinatus tendinosis with a superimposed nonretracted delaminated 

tear in the posterior/mid insertion and an area (10 times 5 millimeters) of partial-thickness 

undersurface fraying of insertional fibers.

In an August 14, 2017 report, Dr. Prickett indicated that appellant presented for follow-up 

of his right shoulder condition. He noted that, during the last visit, he felt that appellant’s signs 

and symptoms were consistent with a possible labral tear. Appellant reported that he had sharp 

pain in the lateral aspect of his right shoulder and that his symptoms had been present since 

approximately 10 months prior when his right arm was cranked behind his back during handcuff 

training at work. Dr. Prickett indicated that appellant had a positive right shoulder impingement 

test and mild right rotator weakness upon physical examination. He discussed the August 11, 2017 

MRI scan and diagnosed the right shoulder conditions of rotator cuff tendinitis with articular-sided 

partial-thickness supraspinatus tear and SLAP tear. Dr. Prickett described his application of a 

corticosteroid injection in appellant’s right shoulder during the visit.

In a September 12, 2017 report, Dr. Prickett noted that, during the last visit, he felt that 

appellant’s signs and symptoms were consistent with a SLAP tear and articular-sided partialthickness supraspinatus tear of his right shoulder. He advised that appellant reported that his right 

shoulder pain had resolved apart from occasional very mild twinges of soreness at extremes of 

right shoulder motion. Appellant reported that his right shoulder injury began after a hyper internal 

rotation injury at work and that he currently was not taking any pain medication. Dr. Prickett 

detailed physical examination findings and diagnosed resolved right rotator cuff tendinitis with 

partial-thickness supraspinatus tear and superior labral tear. Appellant was at maximum medical 

improvement and could perform full-duty work without restrictions.

In a September 12, 2017 report, Dr. Prickett determined that appellant had two percent 

permanent impairment of his right upper extremity under the standards of the sixth edition of the 

American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., 

Guides).4 At the beginning of the report, Dr. Prickett noted, “Patient sustained a work-related 

injury. The injury resulted in superior labral tear and partial-thickness rotator cuff tear.”

On February 21, 2018 Dr. Prickett noted that, during the last visit, he felt that appellant’s 

signs and symptoms were consistent with right rotator cuff tendinitis with articular-sided partialthickness supraspinatus tear and superior labral tear. Appellant reported that his right shoulder 

symptoms had been present for approximately 16 months since an injury at work when his right 

arm was cranked behind him. Dr. Prickett indicated that appellant further reported that his right 

shoulder symptoms had returned and that, since the September 12, 2017 visit, he was involved in 

a nonwork-related motor vehicle accident for which he received treatment for neck problems. He 

diagnosed right rotator cuff tendinitis with articular-sided partial-thickness supraspinatus tear and 

 

4 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2009).
4

superior labral tear, as well as recent cervical spine injury after motor vehicle accident. Dr. Prickett 

indicated that appellant could continue with full-duty work.

On February 22, 2018 OWCP referred appellant’s case to Dr. Todd Fellars, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon and OWCP medical adviser. It requested that he review the medical 

evidence of record and provide an opinion regarding whether the October 4, 2016 employment 

incident was competent to cause the right shoulder conditions diagnosed by Dr. Prickett. 

In a March 1, 2018 report, Dr. Fellars indicated that he did not believe that the diagnosed 

right shoulder conditions, including partial right rotator cuff tear and right SLAP tear, were 

consistent with the October 4, 2016 “injury mechanism.” He noted that a SLAP tear typically 

occurs when there is forced hyperflexion, but that appellant’s right arm underwent internal rotation 

behind his back on October 4, 2016. Dr. Fellars also noted that most of appellant’s findings were 

degenerative in nature and indicated, “He had significant tendinosis and a partial[-]thickness tear 

as well as a degenerative SLAP tear. These conditions are typically a result of a degenerative 

process and not a single inciting incident.” He also noted, “One can never say with 100 percent 

certainty that the claimed shoulder injury did not occur as reported. However, when the medical 

facts that are available are reviewed, it is not medically probable that the pathology identified on 

the MRI [scan] was caused by the reported incident.”

By decision dated March 5, 2018, OWCP denied modification of its September 19, 2017 

decision. It noted that appellant failed to submit a medical report containing a clear opinion that a 

specific diagnosed medical condition was due to the accepted October 4, 2016 employment 

incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period of FECA, that an injury was sustained 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.6 These are the essential elements of each compensation claim regardless 

of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.7

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

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

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

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

 

5 See supra note 1.

6 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

7 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). A traumatic injury refers to injury caused 

by a specific event or incident or series of incidents occurring within a single workday or work shift whereas an 

occupational disease refers to an injury produced by employment factors which occur or are present over a period longer 

than a single workday or work shift. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5 (q), (ee); Brady L. Fowler, 44 ECAB 343, 351 (1992).
5

at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.8 Second, the employee must submit evidence, in the 

form of medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.9 

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 factors 

identified by the claimant.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish injury due to 

the accepted October 4, 2016 employment incident.

Appellant claimed that, during a handcuffing training session on October 4, 2016, he 

sustained a right shoulder injury when his right arm was cranked behind his back to be handcuffed. 

OWCP determined that he established an October 4, 2016 employment incident as described. It 

further found, however, that appellant failed to establish the medical component of fact of injury 

because he failed to submit a medical report containing an opinion that a medical condition was 

diagnosed in connection with the accepted October 4, 2016 employment incident.

The Board finds that OWCP properly accepted the occurrence of the October 4, 2016 

employment incident in the form of appellant having his right arm cranked behind his back to be 

handcuffed. However, appellant has not submitted a rationalized medical report providing a clear 

opinion that a diagnosed medical condition was causally related to the October 4, 2016 

employment incident.

Appellant submitted several reports from August 2017 and February 2017, in which

Dr. Prickett, an attending physician, diagnosed appellant as having right shoulder rotator cuff 

tendinitis with articular-sided partial-thickness supraspinatus tear and superior labral tear (also 

known as SLAP tear). In these reports, Dr. Prickett noted that appellant had reported that his right 

shoulder pain had been present since an injury occurring at work when he was practicing 

handcuffing technique and his right arm was cranked behind his back, resulting in a sharp right 

shoulder pain.11 The Board finds that the submission of these reports would not establish 

appellant’s claim for the October 4, 2016 employment injury. The reports are of no probative 

 

8

Julie B. Hawkins, 38 ECAB 393 (1987).

9

John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

10 See I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730 (1990).

11 The report provided no indication that appellant ever reported the actual date of the handcuffing incident to

Dr. Pickett. However, in the July 28, 2017 initial visit report, appellant reported that his right shoulder pain had been 

present for about 10 months since the handcuffing incident occurred. In the July 28, 2017 report, Dr. Prickett 

diagnosed right shoulder with possible superior labral tear. He obtained a right shoulder MRI scan on August 11, 

2017 which he later indicated confirmed his diagnosis of right rotator cuff tendinitis with articular-sided partialthickness supraspinatus tear and superior labral tear.
6

value regarding this matter because Dr. Prickett did not provide a clear opinion relating appellant’s 

right shoulder/arm condition to the accepted October 4, 2016 employment incident. Although

Dr. Prickett reported that appellant associated his right shoulder problems to the handcuffing 

incident, he did not provide his own opinion in these reports on the cause of the observed right 

shoulder conditions. The Board has held that medical evidence which does not offer an opinion 

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

relationship.12

In a September 12, 2017 report, Dr. Prickett noted, “Patient sustained a work-related 

injury. The injury resulted in superior labral tear and partial-thickness rotator cuff tear.” The 

Board notes that it is unclear whether this comment represents Dr. Prickett’s own opinion on causal 

relationship or whether it simply memorializes appellant’s belief that his right shoulder condition 

was employment related. Even if it constitutes Dr. Prickett’s own opinion that appellant sustained 

an employment-related injury, it is of limited probative value due to its lack of supporting medical 

rationale. He did not provide any notable discussion of the October 4, 2016 employment incident 

or explain how it could have been competent to cause the diagnosed right shoulder conditions. 

Dr. Prickett did not treat appellant until more than nine months after the October 4, 2016 

employment incident and he did not discuss any medical evidence that supported the occurrence 

of an employment injury on that date. The Board has held that a report is of limited probative 

value regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale explaining how an 

employment activity could have caused or aggravated a medical condition.13

In a March 1, 2018 report, Dr. Fellars, an OWCP medical adviser, indicated that he did not 

believe that the diagnosed right shoulder conditions, including partial right rotator cuff tear and 

right SLAP tear, were consistent with the October 4, 2016 “injury mechanism.” He noted that a 

SLAP tear typically occurs when there is forced hyperflexion, but that appellant’s right arm 

underwent internal rotation behind his back on October 4, 2016. Dr. Fellars posited that 

appellant’s right shoulder tendinosis, partial right rotator cuff tear, and SLAP tear were likely due 

to a nonwork-related progressive degenerative process. Therefore the Board finds that as

Dr. Fellars’ opinion negates causal relationship between the accepted October 4, 2016 incident and 

the diagnosed conditions, it is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.” 

The Board thus finds that appellant has not met his 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. 

 

12 See Charles H. Tomaszewski, 39 ECAB 461 (1988); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K.,

Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

13 See Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017).
7

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish injury due to 

the accepted October 4, 2016 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 5, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: November 1, 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