United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bedford Park, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-0258

Issued: March 5, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 12, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 17, 2016 merit 

decision and a September 29, 2016 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs (OWCP).1 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.3

 

1 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from May 17, 2016, the date of OWCP’s last decision, was 

November 13, 2016. Since using November 16, 2016, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the postmark is considered the date of filing. 

The date of the U.S. Postal Service postmark is November 12, 2016, rendering the appeal timely filed. See

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1).

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence after OWCP rendered its September 29, 2016 

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

decision. Therefore, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1); Dennis E. Maddy, 47 ECAB 259 (1995); James C. Campbell, 5 ECAB 35, 36 n.2 (1952). 
2

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish a right 

shoulder injury causally related to the accepted April 1, 2016 employment incident; and 

(2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of the 

claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 3, 2016 appellant, then a 52-year-old clerk, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form 

CA-1) alleging that, on April 1, 2016, she experienced pain in her right elbow and arm when

throwing parcels while in the performance of duty. She first received medical treatment and 

stopped work on April 3, 2016. 

In a letter dated April 6, 2016, the employing establishment controverted the claim. 

By development letter dated April 8, 2016, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

of record was insufficient to support her claim. It advised her of the necessary medical and 

factual evidence and afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence. 

In an April 3, 2016 Rush Oak Park Hospital report, Alexis Reitman, a physician assistant,

related that appellant presented to the emergency department with pain that had begun on the 

previous Friday. She noted that appellant had thrown mail all day Friday in a lateral outward 

repetitive motion. Ms. Reitman diagnosed right shoulder strain. 

Appellant submitted an April 15, 2016 narrative statement, in which she reported that, on 

the date of her claimed injury, she was working on a platform and repeatedly throwing parcels 

weighing approximately 1 to 30 pounds into containers located six-feet away. She reported pain 

and discomfort in her right shoulder and arm as she was performing her employment duties. 

In an April 13, 2016 medical report, Dr. Asif Daud, Board-certified in family medicine, 

noted complaints of shoulder discomfort and limited range of motion. He diagnosed right rotator 

cuff tendinitis and opined that appellant could resume limited-duty work on April 23, 2016. 

In an April 14, 2016 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Daud diagnosed 

right shoulder rotator cuff tendinitis. He reported that appellant’s injury occurred on April 1, 

2016 when she felt discomfort and weakness in her right shoulder while transferring packages. 

Dr. Daud checked a box marked “yes” in response to whether the condition was caused or 

aggravated by the employment incident. He noted no history of a concurrent or preexisting 

injury. 

In a May 3, 2016 medical report, Dr. Daud diagnosed right shoulder rotator cuff 

tendinitis. He restricted appellant from work through May 17, 2016 and referred her for an 

orthopedic evaluation. 

By decision dated May 17, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

medical evidence of record failed to establish that her diagnosed condition was causally related 

to the accepted April 1, 2016 employment incident.
3

On July 7, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration of the May 17, 2016 OWCP 

decision. In an accompanying statement, she reiterated that on April 1, 2016, she sustained an 

injury when she was throwing parcels into a six-foot container and experienced a burning 

sensation in her right arm and shoulder, rendering her unable to move her arm. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted medical reports dated June 8 and 22, 2016 

from Dr. Surrenthia Parker, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Parker reported that 

appellant presented with a history of right shoulder pain which began two months prior. She 

related appellant’s allegations that she had injured her shoulder at work on April 1, 2016 when 

throwing a parcel into a container, causing a sensation in her shoulder and arm. Dr. Parker 

diagnosed right rotator cuff tendinitis and complete rotator cuff tear of the right shoulder upon 

review of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. She recommended surgery and referred 

appellant to a shoulder specialist. 

In a June 15, 2016 diagnostic report, Dr. Waseem Khan, a Board-certified radiologist, 

reported that a right shoulder MRI scan revealed a full thickness tear of the supraspinatus and 

infraspinatus tendons, moderate sized glenohumeral joint effusion, and mild acromioclavicular 

osteoarthrosis. 

By decision dated September 29, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration, finding that she neither raised substantive legal questions nor submitted relevant 

and pertinent new evidence. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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 are 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 on occupational disease.6

In order to determine whether an employee actually sustained an 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 which must be considered in 

conjunction with one another. The first component to be established is that the employee 

actually experienced the employment incident which is alleged to have occurred.7 The second 

component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and generally can be 

established only by medical evidence. 

 

4 Supra note 2.

5 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1154 (1989).

6 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).

7 Elaine Pendleton, supra note 5 at 1143 (1989).
4

To establish causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant disability 

claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit rationalized medical 

opinion evidence supporting such causal relationship.8 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. This medical opinion must include an accurate history of the employee’s 

employment injury and must explain how the condition is related to the injury. The weight of 

medical evidence is determined by its reliability, probative value, convincing quality, care of 

analysis manifested, and medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.9

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted sufficient medical evidence to support 

that her right shoulder injury is causally related to the accepted April 1, 2016 employment 

incident.10 

On April 3, 2016 appellant sought emergency medical treatment at Rush Oak Park 

Hospital. While Ms. Reitman documented treatment of her right shoulder, physician assistants

are not considered physicians as defined under FECA.

11

 Consequently, this report is of no 

probative value and is insufficient to establish appellant’s traumatic injury claim.

12

The medical reports and forms dated April 13 through May 3, 2016 from Dr. Daud are 

also insufficient to support appellant’s claim. In an April 14, 2016 Form CA-20, the physician 

described the April 1, 2016 work incident and diagnosed right shoulder rotator cuff tendinitis. 

Although Dr. Daud checked a box marked “yes” when asked whether the diagnosis was a result 

of the employment incident, the Board has held that reports that addresses causal relationship 

with a checkmark, without medical rationale explaining how the work incident caused the 

alleged injury, are of diminished probative value and insufficient to establish causal 

relationship.13 He failed to discuss appellant’s medical history or explain how repetitively 

throwing parcels of mail on April 1, 2016 would cause her injury.14 Without explaining how,

 

8 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.110(a); John M. Tornello, 35 ECAB 234 (1983).

9

James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991).

10 See Robert Broome, 55 ECAB 339 (2004).

11 5 U.S.C. § 8102(2) of FECA provides as follows: (2) physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical 

psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined 

by State law. The Board has held that a report signed by a physician assistant lacks probative value as medical 

evidence as physician assistants are not considered physicians under FECA. R.M., Docket No. 16-1845 (issued 

March 6, 2017); see also David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320, n.11 (2006).

12 See Sheila A. Johnson, 46 ECAB 323, 327 (1994); see Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988).

13 See Calvin E. King, Jr., 51 ECAB 394 (2000); see also Frederick E. Howard, Jr., 41 ECAB 843 (1990).

14 Any medical opinion evidence appellant may submit to support her claim should reflect a correct history and 

offer a medically sound explanation by the physician of how the specific employment incident, in particular 

physiologically, caused or aggravated her right shoulder injury. M.R., Docket No. 14-0011 (issued 

August 27, 2014).
5

physiologically, the movements involved in the employment incident caused or contributed to 

the diagnosed condition, Dr. Daud’s opinion is of limited probative value and insufficient to 

meet her burden of proof.15 

On appeal, appellant argues that her injury was work related. Her belief, however 

sincerely held, does not constitute the medical evidence necessary to establish a firm medical 

diagnosis and causal relationship.16 

The Board has held that the mere fact that a condition manifests itself during a period of 

employment does not raise an inference of causal relationship.

17

 An award of compensation may 

not be based on surmise, conjecture, speculation, or on the employee’s own belief of causal 

relation.18 In the instant case, the record lacks rationalized medical evidence establishing causal 

relationship between the April 1, 2016 employment incident and her right shoulder rotator cuff 

tendinitis. Thus, appellant has failed to meet her burden of proof. 

Appellant may submit this additional evidence, together 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. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under FECA section 8128(a), OWCP 

regulations provide that the evidence or argument submitted by a claimant must: (1) show that 

OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advance a relevant legal 

argument not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitute relevant and pertinent new 

evidence not previously considered by OWCP.19 Section 10.608(b) of OWCP’s regulations 

provides that, when an application for reconsideration does not meet at least one of the three 

requirements enumerated under section 10.606(b)(3), OWCP will deny the application for 

reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on the merits.20

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

 

15 See L.M., Docket No. 14-0973 (issued August 25, 2014); R.G., Docket No. 14-0113 (issued April 25, 2014); 

K.M., Docket No. 13-1459 (issued December 5, 2013); A.J., Docket No. 12-0548 (issued November 16, 2012).

16 See S.H., Docket No. 17-1447 (issued January 11, 2018); H.H., Docket No. 16-0897 (issued 

September 21, 2016.

17 Daniel O. Vasquez, 57 ECAB 559 (2006).

18 D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006).

19 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see also D.K., 59 ECAB 141 (2007).

20 Id. at § 10.608; see also K.H., 59 ECAB 495 (2008). 
6

The issue presented on appeal was whether appellant met any of the requirements of 

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3), requiring OWCP to reopen the case for review of the merits of the 

claim. In her request for reconsideration, she did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law, nor did she advance a new and relevant legal argument not 

previously considered by OWCP. Rather, appellant argued that her injury was employment

related and described her employment duties.

21

 The underlying issue in this case, however, was 

whether she sustained a right shoulder injury causally related to the accepted April 1, 2016 

employment incident. That is a medical issue which must be addressed by pertinent and relevant 

medical evidence.22 

While appellant submitted new medical evidence, those reports are not relevant to the 

underlying issue of causal relationship. Dr. Parker’s June 8 and 22, 2016 reports described the 

April 1, 2016 employment incident and diagnosed right rotator cuff tendinitis and complete 

rotator cuff tear of the right shoulder. Her reports are substantially similar to the previously 

submitted medical evidence of record. Material which is duplicative of that already contained in 

the case record does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.23 Dr. Parker did not address the 

relevant issue in this claim and failed to state any opinion regarding the cause of appellant’s

diagnosed condition. 

Dr. Khan’s June 15, 2016 diagnostic report is also insufficient to warrant merit review as 

the physician merely interpreted imaging studies with no discussion of the April 1, 2016 

employment incident or cause of appellant’s injury. The Board has held that the submission of 

evidence which does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for 

reopening a case.24 In this case, while appellant submitted new evidence, it was not relevant and 

pertinent in addressing causal relationship pertaining to her alleged right shoulder injury.25

The Board accordingly finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.

CONCLUSION

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

shoulder injury causally related to the accepted April 1, 2016 employment incident. The Board 

also finds that OWCP properly denied her request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

 

21 Sherry A. Hunt, 49 ECAB 467 (1998).

22 See Bobbie F. Cowart, 55 ECAB 746 (2004).

23 See Kenneth R. Mroczkowski, 40 ECAB 855 (1989).

24 Jimmy O. Gilmore, 37 ECAB 257 (1985); Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224 (1979).

25 M.C., Docket No. 14-0021 (issued March 11, 2014); M.H., Docket No. 13-2051 (issued February 21, 2014). 
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’

decisions dated September 29 and May 17, 2016 are affirmed.

Issued: March 5, 2018

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