United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Seattle, WA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1745

Issued: February 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 August 7, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 27, 2017 merit decision 

and a May 15, 2017 nonmerit 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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish disability for the 

period December 1, 2016 to January 22, 2017 due to his accepted employment conditions; and 

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

claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The record provided the Board includes evidence received after OWCP issued its May 15, 2017 decision. 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. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Therefore, the Board is precluded from viewing this additional evidence for the 

first time on appeal. Id.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 2, 2016 appellant, then a 58-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed left wrist/hand tendinitis which he 

attributed to employment-related repetitive movement. He indicated that on November 29, 2016 

he first became aware of his claimed condition and that it was caused or aggravated by factors of 

his federal employment. Appellant last worked on December 1, 2016 and has not returned. 

In a December 2, 2016 report, Dr. Kenneth E. Mayeda, an attending Board-certified 

family practitioner, noted that appellant reported complaining of pain around his left thumb and 

left wrist for the prior two days. Appellant advised that he used his thumbs frequently in his job 

as a letter carrier as he had to sort mail. Dr. Mayeda detailed the findings of his December 2, 

2016 examination, noting that there appeared to be swelling from the dorsum area of the left 

thumb (interphalangeal joint) to the radial aspect of the left wrist. There was mild tenderness 

near the distal radius of the left wrist and Finkelstein’s test was difficult to perform as appellant 

had limited and painful range of motion of the left thumb. Dr. Mayeda diagnosed left wrist 

tendinitis (de Quervain’s tendinitis) and noted, “Related to repetitive activity at work.”

In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated December 2, 2016, Dr. Mayeda listed the date 

of injury as November 30, 2016, the mechanism of injury as delivering mail, and the diagnosis 

due to injury as left wrist tendinitis. He indicated that appellant could resume work with 

restrictions of no simple grasping/fine manipulation. Dr. Mayeda advised that these work 

restrictions would be effective for three weeks.

In a report of accident dated December 2, 2016, Dr. Mayeda indicated that appellant 

complained of injury to his left thumb and wrist due to “repetitive motion of digits” required by 

his job. He noted examination findings and diagnosed left wrist tendinitis.

In a December 21, 2016 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 work incidents caused or aggravated a medical 

condition. It requested that appellant complete and return an attached development questionnaire 

which posed various questions regarding the work duties he believed caused his claimed 

employment injury. On December 21, 2016 OWCP also requested additional information from 

the employing establishment, including a copy of appellant’s position description.

In an undated statement, received on January 10, 2017, appellant indicated that for eight 

hours per day over the course of more than 32 years his letter carrier job required him to hold a 

handful of letters in his left hand and flats in his left arm and to push each letter up with his left 

thumb to transfer it to his right hand and place it in the mail receptacle. He would then use his 

right hand to grab a flat out of his left arm and use his right thumb and hand to roll each flat in 

order to place it in the mail receptacle.

In a January 4, 2017 letter, a customer service manager at the employing establishment 

acknowledged that appellant’s letter carrier job required him to repetitively grasp and manipulate 

letters and other thin objects, and to handle packages weighing up to 70 pounds for the majority 

of each workday. The manager noted that appellant had worked at his present worksite for one 
3

and a half years where he cased mail for about two hours per day and then drove a vehicle to 

deliver mail. The employing establishment submitted a copy of appellant’s position description. 

Appellant submitted a December 29, 2016 report in which Dr. Bruce A. Bonsack, an 

attending Board-certified internist, indicated that he presented for follow-up of left wrist 

tendinitis and tenosynovitis of the thumbs, which had been ongoing for about six weeks.3 He

reported that he was unable to move his thumbs, especially with fine manipulation, due to 

inflammation/discomfort. Dr. Bonsack reported examination findings, noting induration at the 

carpometacarpal and metacarpophalangeal joints of the left thumb and restricted range of motion 

of the left thumb. He diagnosed tenosynovitis/left wrist tendinitis and indicated that he would 

outline appellant’s work limitations in another document. Dr. Bonsack indicated that the 

inflammatory changes noted on examination were consistent with a repetitive injury caused by 

appellant’s letter carrier duties at the employing establishment. 

In a December 29, 2016 letter, Dr. Bonsack indicated that, due to medical reasons, 

appellant should avoid fine manipulation involving his thumbs and should not lift, push, or pull 

more than 10 pounds for three weeks. He noted, “[Appellant] may do light duty with the above 

restrictions.”

4

On January 23, 2017 appellant returned to work for the employing establishment 

performing limited-duty work on a part-time basis. He received partial disability compensation 

on the daily roll between January 23 and April 28, 2017.5

On March 7, 2017 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left hand tenosynovitis and left 

radial styloid tenosynovitis (de Quervain’s tenosynovitis).

On March 16, 2017 appellant filed a claim for wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) for 

the period December 1 through 9, 2016 due to his accepted employment conditions.6

In a December 8, 2015 report, Dr. Michael A. Kovar, an attending Board-certified family 

practitioner, indicated that his clinic had seen appellant on that date and noted that he was 

excused from work from December 8 to 10, 2015. 

 

3 Appellant reported that he had worked at the employing establishment for more than 30 years and that repetitive 

use of his hands had caused arthritic changes in his thumbs that progressed from mild-to-moderate pain to severe 

discomfort over the past year.

4 Appellant also submitted the findings of December 14, 2016 x-ray testing of his left thumb which contained an 

impression of mild degenerative changes.

5 Appellant returned to full-time work without wage loss in late April 2017 and he did not receive any disability 

compensation after April 28, 2017. 

6 The employing establishment verified (Form CA-7a) that appellant worked 9.44 hours on December 1, 2016, 

took a total of 16 hours of sick leave for December 2 to 3, 2016, and took an additional 32 hours of leave without 

pay (LWOP) for the period December 5 to 9, 2016. Appellant later filed additional CA-7 forms claiming temporary 

total disability for the period December 10, 2016 through January 22, 2017.
4

In a December 15, 2015 report, Dr. Thomas C. Erdmann, an attending Board-certified 

family practitioner, advised that his clinic had seen appellant on that date and noted that, due to 

an acute medical condition, he should not work from December 15 to 20, 2015.

In a January 18, 2017 report, Dr. Bonsack indicated that, due to medical reasons, 

appellant could return to work with reduced hours (four hours per day for two weeks) without 

any other restrictions.7

In a March 27, 2017 letter, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence of record did not 

establish that he had disability for the claimed period. It afforded him 30 days to submit 

additional evidence in support of his claim. 

In a March 31, 2017 report, Dr. Bonsack indicated that, due to medical reasons, appellant 

could return to work on a reduced work schedule (six to eight hours per day) for six weeks. 

OWCP subsequently received another copy of Dr. Mayeda’s December 2, 2016 treatment 

notes.

In an April 27, 2017 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability for the 

period December 1, 2016 to January 22, 2017 due to his accepted employment conditions. It 

determined that he failed to submit medical evidence establishing the claimed period of disability. 

OWCP noted that the medical evidence of record showed that appellant could work with 

restrictions during the claimed period of disability.

On May 8, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s April 27, 2017 decision.

In a May 15, 2017 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the 

merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). It found that appellant’s reconsideration 

request neither raised substantive legal questions nor included new and relevant evidence.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA8 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 and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are 

causally related to the employment injury.9 In general the term disability under FECA means 

 

7 On February 2, 2017 Dr. Bonsack indicated that appellant should work four hours per day for two weeks and, on 

February 16, 2017, he noted that appellant should work four hours per day for three weeks.

8 Supra note 1.

9

J.F., Docket No. 09-1061 (issued November 17, 2009).
5

incapacity because of injury in employment to earn the wages which the employee was receiving 

at the time of such injury.10 This meaning, for brevity, is expressed as disability for work.11 

The medical evidence required to establish a causal relationship between a claimed 

period of disability and an employment injury 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.12

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish total disability 

for the period December 1, 2016 to January 22, 2017 due to his accepted employment conditions. 

In a December 8, 2015 report, Dr. Kovar indicated that appellant was evaluated at his 

clinic on that date and noted that he was excused from work from December 8 to 10, 2015. In a 

December 15, 2015 report, Dr. Erdmann advised that appellant had been seen in his clinic on that 

date and noted that, due to an acute medical condition, he should not work from December 15 

to 20, 2015. These reports are of limited probative value regarding appellant’s claim of workrelated disability from December 1, 2016 to January 22, 2017, as both reports predate the 

claimed period of disability by one year. Moreover, neither Dr. Kovar nor Dr. Erdmann 

provided an opinion on the cause of appellant’s disability. The Board has held that medical 

evidence which does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition/disability 

is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.13

In a December 2, 2016 report, Dr. Mayeda diagnosed left wrist tendinitis (de Quervain’s 

tendinitis) and noted, “Related to repetitive activity at work.” In a duty status report dated 

December 2, 2016, he listed the date of injury as November 30, 2016, the mechanism of injury as 

delivering mail, and the diagnosis due to injury as left wrist tendonitis. Dr. Mayeda indicated 

that appellant could resume work with restrictions of no simple grasping/fine manipulation. He 

advised that these work restrictions would be effective for three weeks.14

The Board finds that the submission of these reports are insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim for work-related disability for the period December 1, 2016 to January 22, 

2017 because Dr. Mayeda did not provide a rationalized medical opinion establishing that he had 

work-related disability for this period. The Board has held that a report is of limited probative 

 

10 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f).

11 Roberta L. Kaaumoana, 54 ECAB 150 (2002); see also A.M., Docket No. 09-1895 (issued April 23, 2010).

12 See E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 2010).

13 See Charles H. Tomaszewski, 39 ECAB 461 (1988).

14 In a report of accident dated December 2, 2016, Dr. Mayeda noted examination findings and diagnosed left 

wrist tendinitis. However, he did not provide any opinion on disability in this report.
6

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

given medical condition/disability was related to employment factors.

15

 Dr. Mayeda did not 

explain how appellant’s work-related condition could have caused disability from December 1, 

2016 to January 22, 2017 or otherwise describe, in medical terms, why appellant would have 

been disabled from work during this period.

Appellant submitted a December 29, 2016 report in which Dr. Bonsack reported 

examination findings and diagnosed tenosynovitis/left wrist tendinitis. In a December 29, 2016 

letter, Dr. Bonsack indicated that, due to medical reasons, appellant should avoid fine 

manipulation involving his thumbs and should not lift, push, or pull more than 10 pounds for 

three weeks. He noted, “He may do light duty with the above restrictions.” In a January 18, 

2017 report, Dr. Bonsack indicated that, due to medical reasons, appellant could return to work 

with reduced hours (four hours per day for two weeks) without any other restrictions. The Board

finds that these reports are of limited probative value on the relevant issue of the present case 

because Dr. Bonsack did not provide a rationalized medical opinion that appellant had disability 

from December 1, 2016 to January 22, 2017 due to his accepted work conditions.16 Dr. Bonsack 

did not describe appellant’s work-related conditions in any detail or explain the medical process 

through which they could have caused disability during this period.17

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing disability for 

the period December 1, 2016 to January 22, 2017, causally related to his accepted employment 

conditions, he has failed to meet 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. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Section 8128(a) of FECA does not entitle a claimant to review of an OWCP decision as a 

matter of right.18 OWCP has discretionary authority in this regard and has imposed certain 

limitations in exercising its authority.19 One such limitation is that the request for 

reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of the decision for which 

 

15 See Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017) (finding that a report is of limited probative value 

regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale describing the relationship between work 

factors and a diagnosed condition/disability).

16 Id.

17 Appellant submitted other reports in which Dr. Bonsack discussed disability for periods other than the period 

December 1, 2016 to January 22, 2017, but these reports would not be relevant to the main issue of the present case.

18 This section provides in pertinent part: “[t]he Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against payment 

of compensation at any time on his own motion or on application.” 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

19 20 C.F.R. § 10.607.
7

review is sought.20 A timely application for reconsideration, including all supporting documents, 

must set forth arguments and contain evidence that either: (i) shows that OWCP erroneously 

applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (ii) advances a relevant legal argument not 

previously considered by OWCP; or (iii) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not 

previously considered by OWCP.21 When a timely application for reconsideration does not meet 

at least one of the above-noted requirements, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration 

without reopening the case for a review on the merits.22

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

OWCP issued a decision on April 27, 2017, and by appeal request form, appellant timely 

requested reconsideration of that decision on May 8, 2017. However, appellant did not present 

any additional evidence or argument with his request.

The issue presented on appeal is whether appellant met any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3), thereby necessitating a reopening of the case for review of the merits of 

the claim. In his request for reconsideration, appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously 

applied or interpreted a specific point of law. Additionally, appellant did not advance a relevant 

legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. The underlying issue in this case was 

whether the evidence established appellant’s claimed total disability for the period December 1, 

2016 to January 22, 2017, due to his accepted left wrist/hand conditions. That is a medical issue 

which must be addressed by relevant medical evidence.23 A claimant may be entitled to a merit 

review by submitting relevant and pertinent new evidence, but the Board finds that appellant did 

not submit any such evidence in this case. 

The Board accordingly finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 20 

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

review.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish disability for the 

period December 10, 2016 to January 22, 2017 due to his accepted employment conditions. The 

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

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

 

20 Id. § 10.607(a). For merit decisions issued on or after August 29, 2011, a request for reconsideration must be 

received by OWCP within one year of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought. Federal (FECA) Procedure 

Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 (February 2016). Timeliness is determined by the 

document receipt date of the request for reconsideration as indicated by the received date in the Integrated Federal 

Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS). Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4b.

21 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).

22 Id. at § 10.608(a), (b).

23 See Bobbie F. Cowart, 55 ECAB 746 (2004).
8

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 15 and April 27, 2017 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: February 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