United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.E., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Garden City, NY, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0940

Issued: June 11, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 3, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 3, 2017 merit decision 

and a January 30, 2018 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 The Board notes that during the pendency of this appeal, OWCP issued a November 29, 2018 decision which 

denied reconsideration of the November 3, 2017 merit decision currently on appeal. OWCP’s November 29, 2018 

decision is null and void as the Board and OWCP may not simultaneously exercise jurisdiction over the same issue(s) 

in a case on appeal. 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c)(3), 10.626; see e.g., M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019);

Lawrence Sherman, 55 ECAB 359, 360 n.4 (2004).

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that following the January 30, 2018 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an injury 

causally related to her accepted November 25, 2011 employment incident; and (2) whether OWCP 

properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 3, 2011 appellant, then a 45-year-old mail handler, filed a notice of 

recurrence (Form CA-2a) of an August 6, 2006 injury. She alleged that, on November 25, 2011, 

she injured her neck, mid-back, and shoulders (mostly the right shoulder), while singling out 

pallets from a pile while in the performance of duty. On the same claim form, appellant also 

alleged that on the next day, November 26, 2011, “she injured the same body parts.” At that time 

she noted that she was on a rehabilitative assignment. The employing establishment indicated that 

appellant was working an eight-hour limited-duty job offer. Appellant stopped work on 

November 29, 2011. OWCP converted the recurrence claim to a traumatic injury claim (Form 

CA-1) with an injury date of November 25, 2011. 

A January 23, 2012 duty status report (Form CA-17) from Dr. Rajpaul Singh, a neurologist, 

noted that appellant was a mail handler and injured her neck, arm, and back “while working 

pallets” on November 26, 2011. In a February 21, 2012 report, Dr. Singh noted a “neck workrelated injury.”

In a November 29, 2011 statement, appellant indicated that on November 25, 2011, 

between the hours of 11:30 p.m. and 1:00 a.m., she was assigned to the empty equipment operation 

room to work by herself moving heavy pallets, stacking empty trays, and wrapping them with 

plastic. She related that, while performing these activities, she stressed her neck, back and 

shoulders. Appellant also indicated that she felt the same pain while performing similar tasks the 

evening of November 26, 2011 and later reported her injuries on November 29, 2011, when her 

pain and dizziness were too severe for her to function.

In a February 20, 2012 statement, A.H., a health and resource management specialist, 

indicated that appellant was working limited duty, had a history of depression and anxiety verified 

by her psychologist, and questioned the length of time it took appellant to report the injury. She 

noted that appellant called the unscheduled absence telephone line to claim stress on November 30, 

2011, but had filed a Form CA-2a claiming she injured herself five days earlier. 

In a development letter dated March 19, 2012, OWCP advised appellant that because her 

claim appeared to be a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time from work, the 

employing establishment did not controvert continuation of pay (COP) or challenge the merits of 

the claim, and payment of a limited amount of medical expenses was administratively approved. 

It advised that the claim was reopened because the merits were not formally considered and a claim 

for wage loss was received. OWCP noted that appellant was working in a modified capacity and 

that the evidence was insufficient to establish that she actually experienced the incident or 
3

employment factor alleged to have caused the injury.4 It explained that additional factual and 

medical evidence was necessary to establish her claim and provided a questionnaire for 

completion. Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit the requested evidence.

OWCP received March 12 and April 9, 2012 duty status reports (Form CA-17) from

Dr. Singh who indicated that “the employee stated [that] while working pallets [she] hurt [her] 

neck, arms and back.”

Appellant responded in an April 16, 2012 letter describing the alleged employment 

incident. 

OWCP received March 12 and April 9, 2012 reports from Dr. Farshad Hannanian, a 

neurologist, who indicated that appellant sustained injuries to her neck, back, and shoulders on 

November 25, 2011, and was in good health prior to the injury. Dr. Hannanian diagnosed: 

traumatic cervical myofascitis, with radiculopathy; traumatic lumbar myofascitis, with 

radiculopathy, rule out disc herniation, post-traumatic, rule out lumbar disc herniation, posttraumatic; and right and left post-traumatic internal shoulder derangement, rule out tear of rotator 

cuff muscles. He opined that the diagnosed conditions were the result of the employment incident. 

By decision dated April 27, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that fact of 

injury had not been established. 

On June 4, 2012 OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration. Appellant

reiterated the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged employment injury.

OWCP received physical therapy notes from March 1 to June 21, 2012; a report from

Dr. Hannanian, dated May 14, 2012, indicating that appellant sustained an injury to her neck, back,

and shoulders on November 25, 2011; and a report from Dr. Molook Ali, a psychiatrist, dated 

May 14, 2012, indicating that appellant had a history of anxiety attack and depression after the 

November 25, 2011 injury.

By decision dated December 26, 2012, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. 

On July 22, 2015 OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration. Appellant

explained that the December 26, 2012 decision was mistakenly sent to her old address and she did 

not receive it until on or about June 2, 2015. She enclosed copies of previously received and

considered medical reports. 

By decision dated November 13, 2015, OWCP denied modification of the prior decision.5

 

4 The record reflects that appellant has a prior accepted claim for a traumatic injury on August 30, 2011, under 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx307.

5 OWCP explained that the evidence supported a review of the merits even though the request was not made within 

a year, because appellant did not receive the prior decision based on an error by it. It noted that despite appellant 

informing them of her new address, it was not updated in the system and she did not receive the decision in time to 

exercise her appeal rights.
4

On November 15, 2016 OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration. 

OWCP received magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans dated January 3 and 

February 15, 2017.

By decision dated June 23, 2017, OWCP modified the November 13, 2015 decision. It

found that appellant established the employment incident as alleged and that a medical condition 

was diagnosed. OWCP further found, however, that the evidence submitted was insufficient to 

establish causal relationship between the accepted incident and a diagnosed medical condition 

because it had not received an opinion from a physician explaining how the claimed employment 

activity caused or contributed to the diagnosed conditions.

On August 7, 2017 appellant again requested reconsideration. She also provided a report 

from Dr. Ellen Edgar, a neurologist.

In a July 26, 2017 report, Dr. Edgar noted that appellant was examined for injuries 

sustained in a work-related accident on November 25, 2011, and that appellant had a prior history 

of injury on August 6, 2006. She diagnosed: paracervical myofascitis (increased); cervical disc 

bulges and herniations; lumbar disc bulges with impingement on the thecal sac, post-traumatic; 

dizziness; cervicalgia; and cervical radiculopathy. Dr. Edgar explained that she compared the MRI 

scan results from the 2006 accepted injury and the 2011 injury and opined that “it is evident that 

my patient indeed suffered injuries to both her neck and lower back. The 2011 injuries were caused 

by bending, twisting, pulling, lifting, and pushing action while moving heavy pallets during the 

course of her work.” Dr. Edgar opined that “with a reasonable degree of medical certainty ... [t]he 

diagnosed condition is causally related to the injuries sustained on [November 25, 2011].”

By decision dated November 3, 2017, OWCP denied modification of its June 23, 2017 

decision. It explained that the medical evidence did not establish causal relationship. 

On January 9, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration. She argued that on November 25, 

2011, when she bent and twisted her body to lift, pull, and push heavy pallets from the pile to a 

single pallet,she felt pain, dizziness, and weakness to her neck, back, and arms, and she was certain 

this work incident caused her injuries. Appellant enclosed a new report from Dr. Edgar dated 

November 22, 2017.

In a November 22, 2017 report, Dr. Edgar repeated the opinions she provided in her 

previous July 26, 2017 report. 

By decision dated January 30, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

without a review of the merits.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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 
5

time limitation period of FECA,6that 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.7 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.8

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 

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.9 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.10 

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish causal 

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.11 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 employee.12 

Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment, 

nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or 

incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.13

In any case where a preexisting condition involving the same part of the body is present 

and the issue of causal relationship therefore involves aggravation, acceleration or precipitation, 

the physician must provide a rationalized medical opinion that differentiates between the effects 

of the work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition.14

 

6 S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

7

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

8 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).

9 Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

10

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

11 L.D., Docket No. 17-1581 (issued January 23, 2018); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

12 L.D., id.; see also Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994).

13 T.H., Docket No. 18-1736 (issued March 13, 2019); Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997).

14 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013).
6

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an injury 

causally related to the accepted November 25, 2011 employment incident. 

The medical evidence of record contains no reasoned explanation of how the specific 

employment incident on November 25, 2011, caused or aggravated appellant’s claimed neck, 

back, and shoulder conditions.15 This is especially important as appellant has preexisting 

conditions and was working on a rehabilitative assignment.16 

Dr. Singh completed a January 23, 2012 duty status report indicating that appellant injured 

her neck, arm, and back while working pallets on November 26, 2011. However, he did not 

provide a diagnosis or an opinion as to the cause of her injury.17 Likewise, Dr. Singh’s

February 21, 2012 report does not contain a diagnosis and merely indicates “neck – work[-]related 

injury” and “while working pallets hurt neck, arms and back.” The Board has held that medical 

reports are of no probative value if they do not provide medical reasoning, or rationale, explaining 

how appellant’s work activity caused or aggravated a particular diagnosed condition.18 As

Dr. Singh did not provide an opinion and explanation as to how appellant’s employment incident

caused a diagnosed condition, his reports are therefore of no probative value.19 

OWCP received March 12, April 9, and May 14, 2012 reports from Dr. Hannanian who 

indicated that appellant sustained an injury to her neck, back, and shoulders on November 25, 

2011, and diagnosed traumatic cervical myofascitis, with radiculopathy; traumatic lumbar 

myofascitis, with radiculopathy. Dr. Hannanian opined that the conditions were a result of the 

work incident, but he did not provide medical reasoning or rationale explaining how the work 

activity caused or aggravated any diagnosed condition.20 Medical evidence that states a 

conclusion, but does not offer a rationalized medical explanation regarding the cause of an 

employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship.21 The need 

for rationalized medical opinion based on medical rationale is especially important in this case as 

the evidence suggests that appellant had preexisting conditions.22 As Dr. Hannanian did not 

 

15 See George Randolph Taylor, 6 ECAB 986, 988 (1954) (where the Board found that a medical opinion not fortified 

by medical rationale is of little probative value).

16 The records indicated that she had a prior history of injury on August 6, 2006, when she sustained injuries to her 

neck, back, and arms when she was pulling heavy mail with a hook, and received treatment.

17 Supra note 13; see also Ceferino L. Gonzales, 32 ECAB 1591 (1981).

18 Supra note 13.

19 See A.M., Docket No. 10-0205 (issued October 5, 2010) (a physician’s opinion must be independent from a 

claimant’s belief regarding causal relationship).

20 Id.

21 S.H., Docket No. 17-1447 (issued January 11, 2018). 

22 E.V., Docket No. 17-0417 (issued September 13, 2017).
7

provide a rationalized medical opinion regarding causal relationship, his reports are of limited 

probative value.23

A May 14, 2012 report from Dr. Ali advised that appellant had anxiety and depression after 

the November 25, 2011 injury. However, this report is inaccurate as appellant had a history of 

depression prior to the injury. It is well established that medical opinions based on an incomplete 

or inaccurate history are of little probative value.24 

In a July 26, 2017 report, Dr. Edgar compared appellant’s MRI scan results from the 2006 

and 2011 accepted work injuries and opined that “it is evident that my patient indeed suffered 

injuries to both her neck and lower back. The 2011 injuries were caused by bending, twisting, 

pulling, lifting, and pushing action while moving heavy pallets during the course of her work.”

Dr. Edgar added that her conclusion was “with a reasonable degree of medical certainty”; however,

she did not explain how the work activity caused the diagnosed conditions. For conditions not 

accepted by OWCP as being employment related, it is appellant’s burden to provide rationalized 

medical evidence sufficient to establish causal relationship. To be of probative medical value, a 

medical opinion must explain how physiologically the movements involved in the employment 

incident caused or contributed to the diagnosed conditions.25 Therefore, Dr. Edgar’s opinion is 

insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

OWCP also received January 3 and February 15, 2017 MRI scans. However, diagnostic 

reports are of limited probative value as they do provide an opinion as to whether the employment 

incident caused any of the diagnosed conditions.26

Because the medical reports submitted by appellant do not sufficiently address how 

appellant’s November 25, 2011 work activities caused or aggravated a neck, arm, back, or other 

condition, she has not met her burden of proof to establish that an employment incident caused or 

aggravated a specific injury.27

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 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.28 OWCP has discretionary authority in this regard and has imposed certain 

 

23 S.H., supra note 21. 

24 See T.D., Docket No. 18-1190 (issued March 11, 2019); Douglas M. McQuaid, 52 ECAB 382 (2001).

25 W.M., Docket No. 19-0013 (issued April 11, 2019). 

26 See J.S., Docket No. 17-1039 (issued October 6, 2017). 

27 See Linda I. Sprague, 48 ECAB 386, 389-90 (1997).

28 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).
8

limitations in exercising its authority.29 One such limitation is that the request for reconsideration 

must be received by it within one year of the date of the decision for which review is sought.30

A timely application for reconsideration, including all supporting documents, must set forth 

arguments and contain evidence that either: (1) shows that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advances a relevant legal argument not previously 

considered by OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously 

considered by OWCP.31 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.32

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).

Appellant’s January 9, 2018 request for reconsideration neither alleged nor demonstrated 

that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law. She merely reiterated that 

she was injured on November 25, 2011, and that she was submitting new medical evidence. 

Additionally, the Board finds that she did not advance a relevant legal argument not previously 

considered by OWCP. Consequently, appellant is not entitled to further review of the merits of 

her claim based on the first and second above-noted requirements under section 10.606(b)(3).33

Appellant submitted a November 22, 2017 report from Dr. Edgar and argued that the report 

was new medical evidence. However, the Board finds that this report reiterated the prior opinion

from her previous July 26, 2017 report. The Board has held that evidence which repeats or 

duplicates evidence already in the case record does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.34 

Consequently, the evidence submitted by appellant on reconsideration does not satisfy the third 

criterion for reopening a claim for merit review.35

 

29 20 C.F.R. § 10.607.

30 Id. at § 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. Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4b.

31 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3).

32 Id. at § 10.608(a),(b); C.C., Docket No. 18-0136 (issued March 14, 2019); see also E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 

(issued March 18, 2010).

33 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3)(i), (ii).

34 See J.B., Docket No. 18-1531 (issued April 11, 2019); D.K., 59 ECAB 141 (2007).

35 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3)(iii).
9

The Board accordingly finds that appellant has not met 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.36

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an injury 

causally related to the accepted November 25, 2011 employment incident. The Board also finds 

that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 30, 2018 and November 3, 2017

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: June 11, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, 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

 

36 D.R., Docket No. 18-0357 (issued July 2, 2018); A.K., Docket No. 09-2032 (issued August 3, 2010); M.E., 58 

ECAB 694 (2007); Susan A. Filkins, 57 ECAB 630 (2006).