United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

V.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

San Diego, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0936

Issued: October 7, 2019

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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 29, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a February 11, 

2019 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 bilateral arthritic 

hand and feet conditions causally related to the accepted factors her federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.3 The facts and circumstances set forth in 

the Board’s prior decisions are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as follows.

On February 9, 2017 appellant, then a 53-year-old rural mail carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that the arthritis in her hands and feet had been aggravated by 

her federal employment duties. She stopped work on January18, 2017. 

OWCP received several medical reports from Dr. James Italiano, a treating Board-certified 

family practitioner, dated from January 13 to 16, 2017 in which he diagnosed severe pain due to 

erosive bilateral hand and foot osteoarthritis. Dr. Italiano opined that appellant’s employment 

duties of operating her mail vehicle and repetitive use of the hands and wrists for handling mail 

activities aggravated her conditions. 

Appellant also submitted a series of reports from Dr. Jeffrey Schiffman, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, dated from February 8 to March 13, 2017. Dr. Schiffman noted that appellant 

had experienced increasing complaints of hand and foot pain for the past five years and he 

diagnosed erosive arthritis in the fingers, bilateral foot arthritis, and bilateral hand arthritis. He

opined that appellant sustained injury due to her employment duties, which entailed entering and 

exiting the mail vehicle, frequent standing and walking long periods of time, and repetitive use of 

the hands and wrists while handling mail. 

By decision dated May 15, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the medical 

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

conditions and the accepted federal employment factors.

On September 12, 2017 appellant, through counsel, filed an appeal of the May 15, 2017 

OWCP decision to the Board and, by decision dated February 20, 2018,4the Board affirmed the 

May 15, 2017 OWCP decision. The Board found that appellant had failed to submit a rationalized 

medical opinion that her diagnosed arthritic conditions were causally related to the accepted 

employment factors. 

On February 4, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration with OWCP 

and in support thereof submitted a July 13, 2017 report by Dr. Mark Rechnic, a Board-certified 

plastic surgeon, and a September 13, 2017 progress report from Dr. Schiffman. 

 

3 Docket No. 17-1926 (issued February20, 2018). 

4

Id.
3

In the July 13, 2017 report, Dr. Rechnic detailed appellant’s employment and medical 

histories. He diagnosed left ring finger “s/p orif” and diffuse small joint osteoarthritis.

Dr. Rechnic reported that appellant had not worked for the past several months due to her hand 

conditions. He opined that appellant clearly had a work-related condition and that the issue was 

one of apportionment as her employment had aggravated her preexisting arthritic condition.

Dr. Schiffman, in his September 13, 2017 report, detailed appellant’s symptoms and noted 

that she had worked 10 hours days for the past five years at the employment establishment. He 

diagnosed erosive arthritis in the fingers, bilateral foot arthritis, and bilateral hand arthritis. 

Dr. Schiffman opined that appellant preexisting hand arthritis had been aggravated by repetitive 

use of her hands at work, resulting in a permanent aggravation. In support of this conclusion, he 

noted that repetitive use of her hands at work more likely than not aggravated the underlying 

bilateral hand arthritis. The increased trauma over time resulted in increased symptoms. 

Dr. Schiffman also opined that the prolonged walking appellant performed at work had 

permanently aggravated her bilateral foot first metatarsophalangeal arthritis. He provided work 

restrictions.

By decision dated February 11, 2019, OWCP denied modification of the denial of the claim 

finding that appellant had not met her burden of proof to establish her claim as the medical 

evidence she submitted was conclusory and unrationalized. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 has the burden of establishing 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 

and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are 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 on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease. 7

OWCP’s regulations define an occupational disease as “a condition produced by the work 

environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.”

8

 To establish that an injury was 

sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational disease claim, a claimant must submit the 

following: (1) a factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or 

contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or condition; (2) medical evidence 

establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is 

 

5

Supra note 2.

6 C.H., Docket No. 19-0409 (issued August 5,2019); F.M., Docket No. 18-1793 (issued April24, 2019); Elaine 

Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

7 C.H., id.; F.M., id.; DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990)

8

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q).
4

claimed;9 and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related 

to the employment factors identified by the claimant.10

The medical evidence 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 employee, must be one of reasonable 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 employee.11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish bilateral arthritic

hand and feet conditions causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

Preliminarily, the Board notes that it is unnecessary to consider the evidence appellant 

submitted prior to the issuance of OWCP’s May 15, 2017 decision because the Board considered 

that evidence in its February 20, 2018 decision. Findings made in prior Board decisions are res 

judicata absent any further review by OWCP under section 8128 of FECA.12

Following the Board’s February 20, 2018 decision, OWCP received reports from 

Drs. Rechnic and Schiffman. Both physicians opined that appellant’s bilateral hand and foot 

arthritis had been aggravated by her repetitive employment duties. In the July 2017 report,

Dr. Rechnic opined that it was clear that appellant’s conditions were employment related, and the 

only issue was the degree that her work aggravated her preexisting arthritis. On September 13, 

2017 Dr. Schiffman opined that appellant’s diagnosed conditions had been aggravated by her 

repetitive use of her hands and prolonged walking. While both physicians generally supported 

causal relationship, both offered only conclusory opinions. The Board has previously held that 

mere conclusory statements, not fortified by explanation, are insufficient to establish causal 

relationship between employment factors and diagnosed conditions.13 Without further explanation 

as to how, physiologically, the movements involved in appellant’s employment duties caused or 

contributed to the diagnosed conditions, these opinions on causal relationship are of limited 

probative value.14

On appeal counsel argues that OWCP failed to adjudicate the claim in accordance with the 

proper standard of causation and failed to give due deference to the findings of the attending 

 

9 F.M., supra note 6; L.E., Docket No. 18-1138 (issued February 1, 2019); Michael R. Shaffer, 55 ECAB 

386 (2004).

10 L.E., id.; Beverly A. Spencer, 55 ECAB 501 (2004).

11 M.S., Docket 19-0189 (issued May 14, 2019); L.T,, Docket No, 18-1603 (issued February 21, 2019).

12 T.J., Docket No. 18-1477 (issued April4, 2019).

13 M.S., Docket No. 19-0587 (issued July 22, 2019); B.C., Docket No. 18-1735 (issued April23, 2019); V.S., Docket 

No. 17-1926 (issued February 20, 2018); N.M.,Docket No. 010-0283 (issued August19, 2010).

14 M.S., id.; B.C., id.; S.C.,Docket No. 17-0103 (issued May 2, 2017).
5

physician. As explained above, appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence to 

establish causal relationship between the diagnosed conditions of bilateral hand and feet arthritis

and the accepted factors of her federal employment. As such, she has not met her 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

Appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish bilateral arthritic hand and feet 

conditions causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 11, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 7, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board