United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

F.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, HOT 

SPRINGS NATIONAL PARK, Hot Springs, AR, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0205

Issued: June 19, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 5, 2018 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

September 7, 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.3

 

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.

3 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

ISSUE

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

condition was causally related to the accepted December 1, 2017 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 4, 2017 appellant, then a 45-year-old park ranger, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 1, 2017 he injured his left knee while performing 

sprints during a physical efficiency battery while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side 

of the claim form the employing establishment indicated that appellant was injured in the 

performance of duty.

In a report dated December 5, 2017, Dr. Mark Larey, an osteopath and internal medicine 

specialist, diagnosed left knee pain. He noted that the cause of appellant’s condition was related 

to work activities. In a work status form of even date, Dr. Larey checked a box marked “yes”

indicating that appellant’s injury was work related. He also indicated that appellant should remain 

off work until December 7, 2017, and referred him for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan.

Dr. Larey, in a report dated December 7, 2017, diagnosed left knee pain and restricted 

appellant’s employment activities to seated duties with a knee brace beginning on 

December 11, 2017. He also completed a work status form on the same date with the 

aforementioned work restrictions.

In an MRI scan report dated December 11, 2017, Dr. Mark Robbins, a Board-certified 

diagnostic radiologist, indicated impressions of degenerative left knee changes in the lateral joint 

space compartment, degenerative lateral meniscus tear, joint effusion, and Baker’s cyst.

On December 19, 2017, Dr. Lawrence Dodd, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, after 

reviewing appellant’s MRI scan, diagnosed left knee lateral meniscus tear. He requested 

authorization for left knee arthroscopy.

In a report dated December 27, 2017, Dr. Larey diagnosed left knee pain, and indicated 

that appellant could resume seated work on December 29, 2017.

On January 9, 2018 OWCP authorized left knee arthroscopy.

In a development letter dated January 9, 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 had administratively approved a limited amount of medical expenses. However, OWCP 

indicated that the case was now reopened for further consideration because appellant had requested 

authorization for knee surgery. It advised him of the deficiencies of his claim, requested additional 

factual and medical evidence and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded 

appellant 30 days to submit the requested evidence.

In a separate development letter to the employing establishment dated January 9, 2018, 

OWCP requested that it submit comments regarding whether appellant was in the performance of 

duty when the alleged event occurred.
3

In a letter dated January 23, 2018, the employing establishment indicated that appellant 

was completing the mandatory physical fitness test at the time of his injury. It noted that he was 

on duty and on federal property when the claimed injury occurred.

In reports dated January 16 and 23, 2018, Dr. Dodd diagnosed left knee lateral meniscus 

tear and related that he was awaiting a “left knee scope to be scheduled.” He indicated that 

appellant had continued pain in his left knee.

By decision dated February 21, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between the diagnosed 

condition and the accepted December 1, 2017 employment incident.

On February 26, 2018 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before an 

OWCP hearing representative. The hearing was held on July 31, 2018.

In a letter dated August 17, 2018, Dr. Dodd indicated that appellant had been a patient of 

his for an employment-related left knee injury. He noted that he diagnosed lateral meniscus tear 

based on an MRI scan. Dr. Dodd opined that appellant’s condition was caused by the employmentrelated incident on December 1, 2017 based on the acute development of his symptoms in that

specific knee compartment.

By decision dated September 7, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

February 21, 2018 decision, finding that appellant had not met his burden of proof to establish that 

he sustained a medical condition causally related to the accepted December 1, 2017 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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period of FECA,5that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, 

and that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related 

to the employment injury.6 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim, 

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

To determine if an employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Generally, fact of 

 

4 Supra note 2.

5 E.S., Docket No. 18-1750 (issued March 11, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 

ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

6 C.P., Docket No. 18-1645 (issued March 8, 2019); J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 

ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

7 C.P., id.; K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 

2014); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
4

injury consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The 

first component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that 

allegedly occurred.8 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.9 

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is required to establish causal relationship. The 

opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background, 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.10

ANALYSIS

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

condition was causally related to the accepted December 1, 2017 employment incident.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a report dated December 5, 2017 from

Dr. Larey. Dr. Larey initially diagnosed left knee pain prior to appellant receiving an MRI scan. 

In a work status form of even date, he checked the box marked “yes” indicating that appellant’s 

injury was work related. The Board has held that pain is a symptom and not a compensable 

medical diagnosis.11 Also, the Board has held that when a physician’s opinion on causal 

relationship consists only of checking “yes” to a form question, without explanation or rationale, 

that opinion is of diminished probative value and is insufficient to establish a claim.12 

Accordingly, the reports from Dr. Larey are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

Appellant also submitted reports dated December 19, 2017, January 16, and 23, 2018 from

Dr. Dodd. Dr. Dodd reviewed appellant’s MRI scan and diagnosed left knee lateral meniscus tear 

in each of his reports; however, he did not opine as to the cause of appellant’s diagnosed condition. 

The Board has held that 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.13 Thus,

Dr. Dodd’s reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

In a letter dated August 17, 2018, Dr. Dodd diagnosed lateral meniscus tear based on an 

MRI scan. He opined that appellant’s condition was caused by the employment-related incident 

on December 1, 2017 based on the acute development of his symptoms in that specific knee 

compartment. The Board has frequently explained that conclusory medical opinions, are entitled 

to little probative weight and are insufficient to support a causal relationship claim.14 Without 

 

8 E.S., supra note 5; Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9 M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

10 S.S., Docket No. 18-1488 (issued March 11, 2019). 

11 M.J., Docket No. 18-1114 (issued February 5, 2019); C.F., Docket No. 08-1102 (issued October 10, 2008).

12 M.J., id.; D.D., 57 ECAB 734, 738 (2006); Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340 (2003).

13 C.C., Docket No. 17-1841 (issued December 6, 2018); see L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018);

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

14 M.E., Docket No. 18-0330 (issued September 14, 2018); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006).
5

explaining how physiologically the movements involved in the employment incident caused or 

contributed to the diagnosed knee condition, Dr. Dodd’s opinion on causal relationship is 

equivocal in nature and of limited probative value.15

OWCP also received a diagnostic study dated December 11, 2017 from Dr. Robbins. 

However, diagnostic studies lack probative value as they do not address whether appellant’s 

employment incident caused the diagnosed condition.16 

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing causal 

relationship between his diagnosed left knee condition and the accepted December 1, 2017 

employment incident, the Board finds that he 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.

CONCLUSION

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

condition was causally related to the accepted December 1, 2017 employment incident.

 

15 K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); 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 J.S., Docket No. 17-1039 (issued October 6, 2017).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 7, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 19, 2019

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board