United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.L., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, FLEET 

READINESS CENTER, San Diego, CA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1007

Issued: November 28, 2018

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 April 16, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 30, 2017 merit 

decision and a January 16, 2018 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 that his 

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was causally related to the accepted factors of his federal 

 

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

employment; 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).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 13, 2017 appellant, then a 44-year-old composite fabricator leader, filed an

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained bilateral carpal tunnel 

syndrome as a result of continual daily use of his hands, including holding tools, sanding, and 

squeezing and grasping tools with recurring force in the performance of duty. He indicated that 

he first became aware of his condition and realized that it resulted from his federal employment 

on March 23, 2009. On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment noted 

that appellant was last exposed to the employment conditions alleged to have caused his 

occupational disease on October 7, 2017. 

In an accompanying statement, appellant explained that he had carpal tunnel syndrome 

for some time and was told by his primary physician that the occupational tools he used may 

have attributed to the pain and numbness in his hands. He outlined his work history, including 

the time he served in the military, and related that he was hired by the employing establishment 

in 2003. Appellant noted that he worked at the composite shop repairing various aircraft. He 

listed the tools that he used and provided a detailed description of the steps he took to complete 

repairs. Appellant related that he first noticed numbness, stiffness, and pain in both wrists in 

2006, but he was not diagnosed until around 2010. 

In an October 16, 2017 development letter, OWCP acknowledged receipt of appellant’s 

claim and informed him that additional evidence was needed in support of his claim. It provided 

appellant a factual questionnaire to complete and return. OWCP also requested medical 

evidence with a physician’s opinion as to how his employment activities caused, contributed to, 

or aggravated his hand/wrist condition. It afforded appellant 30 days to submit the requested 

information. 

OWCP subsequently received appellant’s professional résumé, a technical manual for 

general composite repair, an inventory of the tools he used, and job grading standards for 

composite/plastic fabricating. 

On October 30, 2017 OWCP received appellant’s response to its development letter. 

Appellant explained that he had been suffering from the effects of carpal tunnel syndrome for 

some time. He related that his physician had informed him that his condition was from the tools 

he used at work and that it would worsen over time. Appellant indicated that the documents he 

had submitted would show his return visits for medical treatment over the past several years. 

OWCP also received several medical reports dated from 2009 through 2015.

In a March 12, 2009 report, Dr. Jenny C. Wang, an osteopath and Board-certified family 

practitioner, related that appellant had complained of “off and on” right hand pain for several 

years. Upon physical examination of appellant’s right hand, she observed tenderness and

decreased sensation at ulnar distribution. Dr. Wang diagnosed hand pain, not arthralgia. 
3

A March 14, 2009 right hand x-ray examination report showed an old healed fracture, but 

the rest of the hand was otherwise unremarkable.

In a March 23, 2009 report, Dr. Kris K. Hirata, Board-certified in physical medicine and 

rehabilitation, related appellant’s complaints of consistent right hand pain and right hand 

numbness in the 4th and 5th fingers for the past two years. Physical examination of appellant’s 

upper extremities showed positive Tinel’s test bilaterally. Dr. Hirata diagnosed neuropathy of

the ulnar nerve. 

A March 23, 2009 electromyography (EMG) and nerve conduction velocity (NCV) study 

report showed right ulnar nerve neuropathy and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, mild-tomoderate on the right and severe on the left. 

On June 8, 2009 Dr. James S. Hwang, an osteopath and Board-certified family 

practitioner, reported that appellant was seen for follow-up of left arm pain. Upon examination 

of appellant’s left arm, he observed tenderness to palpation at the muscles and slight crepitus. 

Dr. Hwang diagnosed arm strain, repetitive use. 

In a June 17, 2010 report, Dr. Raymundo Miranda David, a Board-certified family 

practitioner, noted appellant’s complaints of worsening elbow and wrist pain. He noted that the 

symptoms started approximately four years prior. Dr. David indicated that an NCV study was 

positive for right ulnar neuropathy and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. 

On July 21, 2010 Dr. Marc Harold Fogelson, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon,

reported appellant’s complaints of worsening right ulnar neuropathy and bilateral carpal tunnel 

syndrome. Upon physical examination of appellant’s upper extremities, he observed no 

tenderness to palpation and normal sensation and muscle strength. Dr. Fogelson diagnosed 

carpal tunnel syndrome. 

In a March 31, 2014 report, Dr. Hwang indicated that appellant still complained of sharp 

pain and numbness of the lateral aspect of the bilateral hand. He noted that appellant did “a lot 

of repetitive work with his hands.” Physical examination revealed positive Phalen’s and Tinel’s 

signs bilaterally and positive full range of motion of both wrists. Dr. Hwang diagnosed bilateral 

carpal tunnel syndrome and chronic low back pain. 

Dr. Richard Hanna, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, related in an April 17, 2014 

report, that appellant’s complaints of bilateral hand pain and numbness had increased in the past 

few months, especially at night. Upon physical examination of appellant’s upper extremities, he

observed normal range of motion of the wrists and digits and intact sensation to light touch. 

Tinel’s and carpal tunnel tests were positive bilaterally. Dr. Hanna diagnosed bilateral carpal 

tunnel syndrome. 

A January 5, 2015 lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report showed 

mild degenerative disc disease at L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1. 

A May 14, 2015 right shoulder MRI scan showed supraspinatus tendinitis and a small 

tear at the posterior superior labrum. 
4

By decision dated November 30, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim. It accepted his duties as a composite fabricator leader and diagnosis of carpal tunnel 

syndrome, but denied his claim because the medical evidence of record was insufficient to 

establish that his diagnosed condition was causally related to the accepted employment factors. 

On January 9, 2018 appellant filed a request for reconsideration and noted his

disagreement with the November 30, 2017 decision. He alleged that he had bilateral carpal 

tunnel syndrome in both hands and that it was still a major issue to this date. Appellant related 

that Dr. Hwang would send a letter opining that this health problem was caused by his 

occupation at the employing establishment.

In an after visit summary report dated December 19, 2017, Dr. Hwang indicated that he 

treated appellant on that date and noted a diagnosis of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. 

By decision dated January 16, 2018, OWCP denied reconsideration of the merits of 

appellant’s claim. It found that appellant had not met the requirement of 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) 

sufficient to warrant merit review. OWCP found that the additional medical report submitted 

was irrelevant or immaterial to the underlying issue of his case.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee 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 

evidence4including that he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty and that any 

specific condition or disability from work for which compensation is claimed is causally related 

to that employment injury.5 In an occupational disease claim, appellant’s burden requires 

submission of 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 claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is 

causally related to the employment factors identified by the employee.6

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

causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.7 The opinion of the physician must 

be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, must be one of 

reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature 

 

3 Supra note 1.

4

J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 58 (1968). 

5 G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989).

6 R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008); Ernest St. Pierre, 51 ECAB 623 (2000).

7

I.R., Docket No. 09-1229 (issued February 24, 2010); D.I., 59 ECAB 158 (2007).
5

of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors 

identified by the employee.8

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish bilateral carpal 

tunnel syndrome causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted several reports by Dr. Hwang. In a June 8, 

2009 report, Dr. Hwang observed tenderness to palpation and slight crepitation of appellant’s left 

arm. He diagnosed arm strain, repetitive use. In a March 31, 2014 report, Dr. Hwang related 

that appellant still complained of pain and numbness of the lateral aspect of both hands. He 

indicated that appellant did “a lot of repetitive work with his hands.” Dr. Hwang diagnosed 

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The Board notes that Dr. Hwang provided objective findings 

on examination and diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. He did not, however, provide 

any rationalized opinion relative to the cause of appellant’s diagnosed condition. While

Dr. Hwang alluded to the fact that appellant performed repetitive work with his hands, he did not 

explicitly opine or explain how such repetitive use or repetitive work caused or contributed to 

appellant’s bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Medical evidence that does not offer any 

rationalized opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s diagnosed condition is of no probative 

value to establish causal relationship.

9

 Accordingly, Dr. Hwang’s reports are insufficient to 

establish appellant’s claim.

Appellant also submitted various reports from several physicians dated from 2009 to 

2014. In a March 12, 2009 report, Dr. Wang observed tenderness and decreased sensation at the 

right ulnar nerve and observed hand pain, not arthralgia. In a March 23, 2009 report, Dr. Hirata 

examined appellant for complaints of right hand pain and reported that Tinel’s test was positive 

bilaterally. He diagnosed neuropathy of the ulnar nerve. Neither physician, however, offered 

any opinion or explanation on the cause of appellant’s diagnosed right hand condition. The 

Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an 

employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.10

Similarly, Dr. David’s June 17, 2010 report, Dr. Fogelson’s July 21, 2010 report, and

Dr. Hanna’s April 17, 2014 report, provide a diagnosis of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, but 

do not offer any opinion on the cause of appellant’s diagnosed condition. These reports, 

therefore, are also of no probative value and are thus insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.11

The remaining diagnostic reports, including the March 14, 2009 right hand x-ray report, 

March 23, 2009 EMG/NCV study report, January 5, 2015 lumbar spine MRI scan report, and 

May 14, 2015 right shoulder MRI scan report, are of limited probative value as diagnostic 

 

8

I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).

9 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

10 See supra note 9.

11 Id. 
6

reports fail to provide an opinion on the causal relationship between appellant’s employment and 

his diagnosed condition. For this reason, this evidence is insufficient to meet his burden of 

proof.12

The mere fact that work activities may produce symptoms revelatory of an underlying 

condition does not raise an inference of an employment relation. Such a relationship must be 

shown by rationalized medical evidence of causal relationship based upon a specific and accurate 

history of employment conditions which are alleged to have caused or exacerbated a disabling 

condition.13 Because appellant has failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish that 

his bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was causally related to the accepted factors of his federal 

employment, he has not met his burden of proof to establish his occupational disease claim.

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 vests OWCP with discretionary authority to determine whether 

to review an award for or against compensation. The Secretary of Labor may review an award 

for or against compensation at any time on his own motion or on application.14 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review pursuant to FECA, the claimant must 

provide evidence or an argument which: (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.15 

A request for reconsideration must also be received by OWCP within one year of the date 

of its decision for which review is sought.16 If OWCP chooses to grant reconsideration, it 

reopens and reviews the case on its merits.17 If the request is timely, but fails to meet at least one 

of the requirements for reconsideration, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for review on the merits.18

 

12 See A.B., Docket No. 17-0301 (issued May 19, 2017).

13 Patricia J. Bolleter, 40 ECAB 373 (1988).

14 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see also D.L., Docket No. 09-1549 (issued February 23, 2010); W.C., 59 ECAB 

372 (2008).

15 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see also L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 (issued March 3, 2010); C.N., Docket No. 08-

1569 (issued December 9, 2008).

16 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a). Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter

2.1602.4 (February 2016)

17 Id. at § 10.608(a); see also M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

18 Id. at § 10.608(b); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued March 18, 2010).
7

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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

the merits of his claim, under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

Appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of 

law, did not advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP, and did not 

constitute relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by OWCP. As such, he 

was not entitled to a review of the merits of his claim.19

The underlying merit issue on reconsideration is medical in nature, whether appellant’s 

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was causally related to his employment duties. He submitted a 

December 19, 2017 after visit summary report by Dr. Hwang. This after visit summary report, 

however, did not discuss or offer any opinion regarding whether appellant’s bilateral carpal 

tunnel syndrome was causally related to his employment. The Board notes that the submission 

of evidence that does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for 

reopening a case.20 

Accordingly, the Board finds that appellant did not provide OWCP with any evidence 

which has met the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3) sufficient to require further merit 

review of his claim.

The Board finds, therefore, that appellant has not met any of the regulatory requirements 

and OWCP properly denied his request for reconsideration of the merits of his claim under 

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).21

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish that his 

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was causally related to the accepted factors of his federal 

employment. The Board further finds that OWCP properly denied his request for 

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

 

19 See J.F., Docket No. 16-1233 (issued November 23, 2016).

20 Alan G. Williams, 52 ECAB 180 (2000); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

21 A.K., Docket No. 09-2032 (issued August 3, 2010); M.E., 58 ECAB 694 (2007); Susan A. Filkins, 57 ECAB 

630 (2006).
8

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 16, 2018 and November 30, 2017 

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

Issued: November 28, 2018

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