United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, DALLAS NETWORK 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Dallas, TX, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1693

Issued: July 20, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 7, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 9, 2018 merit 

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

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the issuance of the August 9, 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a bilateral shoulder 

condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 13, 2017 appellant then a 64-year-old mail handler, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed a bilateral shoulder condition due to factors 

of his federal employment, including repetitively lifting non-machinable objects (NMO). He first 

became aware of his condition on May 9, 1990 and realized that it was causally related to his

federal employment on December 18, 2016. Appellant retired on January 27, 2017. 

In an undated statement, appellant noted that he had worked as a mail handler for 31 years 

lifting NMO’s that weighed between 70 and 110 pounds for 8 to 10 hours a day, up to 6 days a 

week. In approximately 1990, he had begun experiencing difficulties with his left shoulder and 

underwent six weeks of physical therapy. Appellant indicated that OWCP has assigned the claim 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx870.3 On or about December 1, 2016, he had begun experiencing bilateral 

shoulder numbness. Appellant noted, “I believe the lifting of all these packages has caused the 

reaggravation of my left shoulder and the injury and numbness to my right shoulder.

In a development letter dated February 22, 2017, OWCP advised appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. It requested additional factual and medical information, including a

report from a physician explaining how employment activities either caused or aggravated a 

diagnosed medical condition. OWCP also requested that appellant respond to a questionnaire to 

substantiate the factual elements of his claim. It afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence.

Subsequently, OWCP received a February 17, 2017 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 

scan of the right shoulder, which revealed moderate acromioclavicular (AC) arthrosis, a possible

underlying partial tear without tendon retraction, strain and tendinosis of the infraspinatus, 

scapularis tendinosis, and subacromial subdeltoid fluid due to possible underlying bursitis. A 

February 17, 2017 MRI scan of the left shoulder revealed moderate AC arthrosis, a possible fullthickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon, infraspinatus and subscapularis tendinosis, and possible 

underlying superior labral tear. An x-ray of the left shoulder also dated February 17, 2017 revealed 

moderate AC osteoarthritis and an x-ray of the right shoulder of even date revealed moderate AC 

joint space narrowing.

By decision dated April 27, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. 

It accepted that the employment factors identified as causing his condition had occurred as 

alleged. OWCP found, however, that appellant had not submitted medical evidence containing 

a diagnosis causally related to the accepted employment factors, and thus the requirements had 

not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

 

3

In an internal memorandum dated February 17, 2017, OWCP indicated that it found no other case files for 

appellant.
3

Thereafter, appellant submitted a December 19, 2016 report from Dr. Rory Allen, an 

osteopath specializing in family medicine. Dr. Allen evaluated him for a bilateral shoulder 

condition. He obtained a history of appellant injuring one or both shoulders in May 1990 and 

noted the condition had resolved until a few months ago, when he had “aggravated both shoulders”

resulting in pain, loss of motion, and reduced strength. Dr. Allen described appellant’s work 

duties, noting that his job required constant lifting of NMOs weighing between 70 and 115 pounds, 

8 to 10 hours a day, up to 6 days a week. He diagnosed bilateral shoulder internal derangement. 

On April 18, 2017 Dr. Christopher Chun, a Board-certified anesthesiologist, evaluated 

appellant for bilateral shoulder pain. He noted that appellant had experienced an employment 

injury on May 9, 1990. On examination Dr. Chun found pain on palpation of the bilateral 

shoulders, limited range of motion, and intact sensation and strength in the upper and lower 

extremities. He diagnosed other specific joint derangement of both shoulders and recommended 

a right shoulder joint block and arthrogram. 

On July 6, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration.

With his request, appellant submitted a December 1, 2016 unsigned report from a 

rehabilitation facility which indicated that he had sustained injuries on May 9, 1990 and 

December 1, 2016 and had developed an occupational disease due to factors of his employment as 

a mail handler.

By decision dated August 4, 2017, OWCP denied modification of its April 27, 2017 

decision.

OWCP thereafter received progress reports from Dr. Allen dated March 1 to 

September 21, 2017. Dr. Allen provided findings on examination and diagnosed bilateral shoulder 

internal derangement.

On May 31, 2017 Dr. Chun treated appellant for bilateral shoulder pain and noted 

appellant’s prior shoulder claim. He found pain on palpation of the bilateral shoulders and limited 

bilateral shoulder motion due to pain. Dr. Chun diagnosed other specific joint derangement of the 

left and right shoulders. 

On September 25, 2017 appellant, through his representative, requested reconsideration. 

By decision dated December 20, 2017, OWCP denied modification of its August 4, 2017

decision. 

OWCP received February 1 through September 21, 2017 progress reports from Dr. Allen, 

who diagnosed bilateral shoulder internal derangement. On December 21, 2017 and February 22, 

2018 Dr. Allen advised that OWCP had previously accepted that appellant sustained bilateral 

shoulder pathology. He noted that, as a result of his prior condition, repetitive job duties, and 

altered shoulder mechanics, he had developed bilateral shoulder internal derangement, left 

shoulder rotator cuff tear, bilateral shoulder impingement syndrome, and bilateral tendinosis 

directly associated with his approved shoulder claim. Dr. Allen opined that appellant’s accepted 

internal derangement of the bilateral shoulders had worsened with time and was “directly attributed 
4

to his previously work requirements...” He requested that OWCP expand acceptance of the claim 

to include bilateral shoulder derangement. 

In his reports, Dr. Allen incorporated a report dated May 4, 2017 from Dr. Chun. Dr. Allen 

noted that he had consulted with Dr. Chun and concluded that appellant had “bilateral shoulder 

internal derangement directly associated with his approved shoulder claim that was closed. Due 

to repetitive work demands his condition has worsened over time...”

In progress reports dated January 18 to May 17, 2018, Dr. Allen provided examination 

findings of tenderness to palpation around the AC joint bilaterally and a positive Hawkins’ test 

bilaterally. He diagnosed bilateral shoulder internal derangement.

On May 9, 2018 Dr. Allen discussed appellant’s history of performing heavy and repetitive 

lifting as a mail handler for 31 years. He noted that he had not experienced shoulder problems 

prior to his employment. Dr. Allen advised that OWCP had accepted a May 1990 claim for 

bilateral shoulder pathology. Appellant’s symptoms had resolved until December 2016, when he 

sustained an aggravation of his condition due to altered shoulder mechanics and repetitive work 

duties. Dr. Allen diagnosed bilateral shoulder internal derangement, left shoulder rotator cuff tear, 

bilateral shoulder impingement syndrome, and bilateral shoulder tendinosis. He opined that 

appellant had bilateral shoulder internal derangement “directly from his accepted claim that has 

worsened over time.”

On May 11, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration. He submitted an amended notice 

of occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) dated May 7, 2018, noting that he first became aware 

of his illness on December 1, 2016 and realized it was caused or aggravated by factors of his 

federal employment on December 19, 2016.

By decision dated August 9, 2018, OWCP denied modification of the December 20, 2017 

decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including 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 

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

that any disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to 

 

4

Id.

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

153 (1989).
5

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

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.8

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

relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.9 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.10

In a case in which 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.11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

The record reveals that appellant had previously filed a claim for a right shoulder condition 

in 1990, to which OWCP assigned File No. xxxxxx870. The medical evidence submitted by 

appellant in support of his present bilateral shoulder injury claim made several references to the 

prior 1990 claim. 

In this regard, on December 19, 2016 Dr. Allen advised that appellant had a prior history 

of injuring one or both shoulders in May 1990 which had resolved until a few months earlier when 

he had aggravated his shoulders bilaterally. He noted that appellant lifted packages at work 

 

6

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 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).

8 S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008).

9 A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008).

10 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008).

11 R.C., Docket No. 19-0376 (issued July 15, 2019); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal 

Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013).
6

weighing 70 to 115 pounds every day and up to six days a week. Dr. Allen diagnosed internal 

derangement of the bilateral shoulders. 

On December 21, 2017 and February 22, 2018 Dr. Allen again indicated that OWCP had 

previously accepted that appellant had a bilateral shoulder condition. He diagnosed bilateral 

shoulder internal derangement, a left shoulder rotator cuff tear, bilateral shoulder impingement 

syndrome, and bilateral tendinosis causally related to his prior condition, repetitive work duties, 

and altered shoulder mechanics. Dr. Allen opined that appellant’s accepted internal derangement 

of the bilateral shoulders had worsened with time due to the requirements of his employment and 

requested that OWCP expand acceptance of the claim to include bilateral shoulder derangement. 

He advised that in consultation with Dr. Chun, they both found bilateral shoulder derangement due 

to an accepted employment injury that had worsened with time due to appellant’s repetitive 

employment duties. 

In a report dated May 9, 2018, Dr. Allen again noted that OWCP had accepted appellant’s 

claim for a bilateral shoulder condition in 1990, and that his symptoms had resolved until 

December 2016, when he had sustained an aggravation of his condition due to altered shoulder 

mechanics and repetitive work duties. He diagnosed bilateral shoulder internal derangement, left 

shoulder rotator cuff tear, bilateral shoulder impingement syndrome, and bilateral shoulder 

tendinosis. 

In an April 18, 2017 report, Dr. Chun diagnosed other specific joint derangement of the 

bilateral shoulders. He noted that appellant had a history of a May 9, 1990 employment injury. 

On May 31, 2017 Dr. Chun again diagnosed other specific joint derangement of the bilateral 

shoulders and indicated that appellant had a prior accepted claim. 

OWCP procedures provide that cases should be doubled when a new injury is reported for 

an employee who previously filed an injury claim for a similar condition and further indicates that 

the cases should be doubled as soon as the need to do so becomes apparent.12 Its procedures further 

provide for combining case files where correct adjudication depends on cross-referencing between 

files.13 For example, if a new injury case is reported for an employee who previously filed an 

injury claim for a similar condition or the same part of the body, doubling is required.14

It is apparent that appellant had a prior claim for shoulder injury with OWCP under File 

No. xxxxxx870. However, as was noted above, following an internal search OWCP determined 

that there were no prior claims for appellant. The Board concludes that, as appellant has provided 

OWCP’s file number, coupled with the reports by his attending physicians who referenced a prior 

OWCP shoulder claim with the corresponding claim number, the claim existed and was either 

closed and/or deleted by OWCP. As such it has not been administratively combined with the 

present file. The Board finds, therefore, that it is unable to review all of the factual and medical 

 

12 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, File Maintenance and Management-Doubling Case Files, 

Chapter 2.400.8(c) (February 2000). See M.M.; Docket No. 17-1150 (issued January 26, 2018); D.C., Docket No. 

17-0538 (issued June 27, 2017).

13 Id.

14 Id. at Chapter 2.400.8(c)(1); see also M.M., supra note 12.
7

evidence under OWCP File No. xxxxxx870, which relates to a similar condition and the same 

bodily member that is contested in the present claim.

For a full and fair adjudication, the case must be remanded to OWCP to either 

administratively combine the current claim file, OWCP File No. xxxxxx853, with the 

closed/deleted file, OWCP File No. xxxxxx870,15 or to properly assemble and reconstruct OWCP 

File No. xxxxxx853 to include the factual and medical evidence from OWCP File No. xxxxxx870. 

Following this and other such further development as it may deem necessary, OWCP shall issue a 

de novo decision on the issue of whether appellant has established a bilateral shoulder condition 

causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment or that his previously accepted 

claim should be expanded to accept the additional diagnosed shoulder conditions.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 9, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: July 20, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

15 See W.L., Docket No. 19-0396 (issued May 18, 2020); K.T., Docket No. 17-0432 (issued August 17, 2018).