United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Springfield, OR, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1554

Issued: February 8, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 10, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 17, 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 his burden of proof to establish an occupational 

disease in the performance of duty.

 

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 September 21, 2017 appellant, then a 65-year-old building equipment mechanic, filed 

an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) for an unspecified injury or condition. He alleged that 

he was injured as a result of performing repetitive work including changing overhead lighting, 

pulling wires through conduits, and climbing ladders and steps while carrying heavy equipment in 

the performance of duty. Appellant noted that he first became aware of his condition on March 1, 

2017 and realized its relation to his federal employment on March 8, 2017. He did not stop work.

An accident report form prepared by R.E., manager of maintenance, dated September 18, 

2017, noted that appellant was hired on November 8, 1997. R.E. advised that, due to several years 

of replacing light ballasts, pulling wires through conduits, and other tasks in the performance of 

his maintenance job, appellant developed repetitive motion injuries to both shoulder, both knees, 

and his left ring finger.

In a statement dated September 20, 2017, appellant reported working for the employing 

establishment for 20 years. He noted that his job required kneeling while working on sinks, drains, 

repairing pallet jacks, tilters, compressors, air conditioners (roof top units), climbing and 

descending stairs, and carrying motors and fans for 36 roof top units. As a result, appellant’s knees 

have locked up, given out, and become weaker. He indicated that in 2004 he had right shoulder 

surgery and in 2017 the condition returned and was now affecting both shoulders. Appellant

reported that both shoulders catch when raising his hands above his head to work on ballasts for 

lighting, while pulling 200 feet of water and air hoses across the roof to clean the roof top units

and while pulling heavy wires and cables through conduits for new or relocated power for 

machines.

In a development letter dated September 29, 2017, OWCP advised appellant of the type of 

factual and medical evidence needed to establish his claim, including a detailed description and 

factual corroboration of the identified work factors, and a report from his physician explaining 

how and why those tasks would cause the claimed injuries. It also requested that he respond to a 

questionnaire to substantiate the factual elements of his claim. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days 

to provide the requested information. No further information was received by OWCP.

By decision dated October 30, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the injury or events occurred as alleged. It

noted that appellant did not respond to OWCP’s development letter of September 29, 2017. 

On November 29, 2017 appellant requested a review of the written record by an OWCP 

hearing representative. In support of his request, he submitted an October 26, 2017 statement,

indicating that an ultrasound of his left shoulder revealed a tear. On October 30, 3017 appellant

reported this injury to his supervisor.

Appellant also submitted a report by Dr. Brick A. Lantz, a Board-certified orthopedist, of 

his treatment of appellant on November 13, 2017. Dr. Lantz noted that an ultrasound of the right 

shoulder revealed a ruptured long head of the biceps with probable partial thickness tearing of the 

supraspinatus and that the ultrasound of the left shoulder revealed subluxed biceps and tearing of 

the subscapularis superiorly. He advised that based on the x-rays and ultrasound reports he 

recommended surgical intervention. Appellant reported that his past work activities were a
3

significant factor in developing his shoulder problems. Dr. Lantz also indicated that there was a

significant component of degeneration in the tendons.

By decision dated April 17, 2018, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

October 30, 2017 decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

A claimant seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the essential 

elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence, 

including that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any specific 

condition or disability claimed is causally related to the employment injury.4

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.5

An injury does not have to be confirmed by an eyewitness in order to establish the fact that 

an employee sustained an injury while in the performance of duty. However, the employee’s 

statements must be consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances and his or her 

subsequent course of action.6 Such circumstances as late notification of injury, lack of 

confirmation of injury, continuing to work without apparent difficulty following the alleged injury 

and failure to obtain medical treatment may cast doubt on an employee’s statements in determining 

whether he or she had established a prima facie claim for compensation. However, an employee’s 

statement alleging that an injury occurred at a given time and in a given manner is of great 

probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong and persuasive evidence.7

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

evidence to resolve the issue.8 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.9 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be 

expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical 

 

3 Supra note 1.

4 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996).

5 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

6 See B.B., Docket No. 12-0165 (issued July 26, 2012); Mary Jo Coppolino, 43 ECAB 988 (1992).

7

Id.

8 See Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996). 

9 Supra note 5.
4

rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s 

specific employment factors.10

ANALYSIS

OWCP denied appellant’s claim because he failed to establish that the claimed work events 

occurred as alleged. The evidence of record supports that his job duties required performing 

repetitive overhead tasks including installing ballasts for lighting, pulling water and air hoses 

across the roof to clean the roof top units, pulling heavy wires and cables through conduits for new 

or relocated power for machines, kneeling while working on sinks, drains, repairing pallet jacks, 

tilters, compressors, and air conditioners (roof top units), climbing and descending stairs, and 

carrying motors and fans from 36 roof top units. Specifically, appellant’s manager, R.E. indicated 

in an accident report dated September 18, 2017, that on September 13, 2017, appellant was 

performing the regular duties required of his position including replacing light ballasts, pulling 

wire through conduits, and other tasks involved in the performance of his maintenance job. He 

further noted that after several years of performing his job duties he developed repetitive motion 

injuries to both shoulder, both knees, and left ring finger. On September 29, 2017 OWCP

requested that the employing establishment provide comments from a knowledgeable supervisor 

on the accuracy of statements provided on the CA-2; however, no additional evidence was 

submitted. The Board finds that the evidence is undisputed that appellant was performing his work 

duties as a building equipment mechanic which included performing repetitive activities using 

both shoulders and knees. 

The Board further finds, however, appellant failed to submit sufficient medical evidence 

sufficient to establish that his diagnosed medical conditions are causally related to specific factors 

of his federal employment. 

Appellant submitted a November 13, 2017 report from Dr. Lantz who noted the results of 

an ultrasound of the right shoulder revealed a ruptured long head of the biceps with probable partial 

thickness tearing of the supraspinatus. Dr. Lantz noted the ultrasound of the left shoulder revealed 

subluxed biceps and tearing of the subscapularis superiorly. He advised that based on the x-rays 

and ultrasound reports he recommended surgical intervention. Appellant reported that his past 

work activities were a significant factor in developing his shoulder problems. Dr. Lantz indicated 

that there was a significant component of degeneration in the tendons. However, this report is 

insufficient to establish the claim as he merely repeated the history of injury as reported by 

appellant without providing his own opinion regarding whether his condition was work related. 

To the extent that he is providing his own opinion, Dr. Lantz failed to provide a rationalized 

opinion regarding the causal relationship between appellant’s bilateral shoulder condition and 

accepted factors of his federal employment.11 Additionally, he attributed appellant’s shoulder 

condition to a “significant component of degeneration.”

 

10 Id.

11 Franklin D. Haislah, 52 ECAB 457 (2001) (medical reports not containing rationale on causal relationship are 

entitled to little probative value); Jimmie H. Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001). 
5

As there is no rationalized medical evidence of record explaining how appellant’s 

employment duties caused or aggravated a medical condition involving his bilateral shoulders, the 

Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof. 

On appeal appellant contends that he submitted sufficient medical evidence to support that 

he developed bilateral shoulder conditions due to performing repetitive duties at work over 20 

years. As noted above, the medical evidence of record contains insufficient rationale to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof to establish 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(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant established factors of his federal employment. However, 

appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish an occupational disease causally related to 

the accepted factors of his federal employment.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 17, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed as modified.

Issued: February 8, 2019

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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