United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, FLEET 

LOGISTICS CENTER PUGET SOUND, 

Port Orchard, WA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1613

Issued: July 13, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On July 25, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 8, 2019 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 May 8, 2019 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 right shoulder 

condition causally related to the accepted December 10, 2018 employment incident. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 3, 2019 appellant, then, a 53-year-old fuel system distribution worker, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 10, 2018 he injured his right 

shoulder when he fully extended his right arm to catch a rain-soaked mooring line and felt pain in 

his right shoulder when the line landed on his right arm while in the performance of duty. He did 

not stop work.

In a work restriction form report dated January 2, 2019, Dr. Daniel Gonzalez-Dilan, Boardcertified in emergency medicine, advised that appellant could work with restrictions which were

effective through January 16, 2019. 

In a January 16, 2019 report, Dr. Marc Suffis, Board-certified in emergency medicine, 

noted that appellant related that on December 10, 2018 he immediately experienced right shoulder

pain after trying to catch a wet, heavy mooring line with his right hand. Appellant advised that the 

line pulled his right arm in a downwards and backwards motion. On physical examination,

Dr. Suffis observed tenderness in appellant’s right supraspinatus muscle and a negative O’Brien 

sign for his right shoulder. Range of motion (ROM) testing of the right shoulder revealed 100 

degrees of flexion and 80 degrees of abduction, and isolated right rotator cuff testing showed 4/5 

supraspinatus/infraspinatus strength and 5/5 subscapularis strength. Dr. Suffis indicated that he 

reviewed x-rays of the right shoulder and diagnosed right shoulder strain, noting that a diagnosis 

of right rotator cuff tear could not be ruled out. Appellant submitted a January 16, 2019 x-ray 

which contained an impression of probable mild degenerative changes of the right shoulder joint 

with no acute bony abnormalities. In an accompanying work capacity evaluation form (Form

OWCP-5c) of even date, Dr. Suffis diagnosed right rotator cuff strain and rule out tear of the right 

shoulder, and he indicated that appellant could perform light work. 

A February 4, 2019 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report of the right shoulder 

contained an impression of reduced ROM likely secondary to adhesive capsulitis, low-grade 

undersurface tearing of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus with mild subacromial/subdeltoid 

bursitis, and abnormal labral signal more likely degenerative than acute post-traumatic (given the 

subject’s age), which might correlate to anterior inferior instability. On February 4, 2019

Dr. Suffis discussed the MRI scan and diagnosed rotator cuff and labral tears of the right shoulder 

with adhesive capsulitis.

In a February 13, 2019 report, Dr. Suffis reported physical examination findings and 

indicated that appellant could perform light work. In a subsequent Form OWCP-5c report of even 

date, he diagnosed rotator cuff and labral tears of the right shoulder with adhesive capsulitis, and 

he provided work restrictions. 
3

A February 14, 2019 dispensary permit report by Dr. Robert Uniszkiewicz, a Boardcertified occupational medicine specialist, indicated that he provided medical treatment to 

appellant and advised that he could work with restrictions.

In a March 4, 2019 report, Dr. Gregory P. Duff, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

discussed the December 10, 2018 employment incident and noted that appellant reported no prior 

injuries. He diagnosed right superior glenoid labrum and rotator cuff tears (improved), and strain

of muscles/tendons of the right rotator cuff. On March 28, 2019 Dr. Duff noted that appellant 

was being followed for right shoulder pain related to a reported work injury. He diagnosed 

superior glenoid labrum tear (deteriorated), strain of muscles/tendons of the right rotator cuff 

(unchanged), and unspecified injury of muscles, fascia, and tendons of the right biceps long head

(deteriorated). 

A March 22, 2019 dispensary permit report by Lisa Laurion, a physician assistant, revealed 

that she treated appellant and advised that he could work with restrictions.

In a development letter dated April 2, 2019, 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 December 10, 2018 employment incident caused or aggravated 

a medical condition. It provided a questionnaire for his completion requesting clarification of the 

circumstances of the reported employment incident. In a letter of even date, OWCP requested that 

the employing establishment provide additional information. It afforded both parties 30 days to 

respond.

In response, appellant submitted an April 10, 2019 statement in which he asserted that his 

December 10, 2018 injury occurred during an overtime callback while performing line handling 

to tie up a fuel barge. In an April 10, 2019 e-mail and April 11, 2019 letter, appellant’s immediate 

supervisor verified appellant’s assertion that the claimed December 10, 2018 incident occurred 

while performing overtime work. 

Appellant resubmitted several medical reports previously considered by OWCP.

By decision dated May 8, 2019, OWCP accepted the occurrence of a December 10, 2018 

employment incident in the form of a mooring line falling on appellant’s right arm. However, it 

denied his claim for a traumatic injury because he did not submit sufficient medical evidence to 

establish causal relationship between a diagnosed medical condition and the accepted 

December 10, 2018 employment incident.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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 timely filed within the applicable time 

 

3 Supra note 1.
4

limitation of FECA,4that 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.5 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.6

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There 

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must submit 

sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the 

time, place, and in the manner alleged. Second component is whether the employment incident 

caused a personal injury and can be established only by medical evidence.7 

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

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence.8 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 of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and specific employment factors 

identified by the employee.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a right shoulder 

condition causally related to the accepted December 10, 2018 employment incident.

Appellant submitted several reports of Dr. Suffis, including narrative reports dated 

January 16, and February 4 and 13, 2019, and form reports dated January 16 and February 13, 2019. 

Dr. Suffis diagnosed the right shoulder conditions of rotator cuff/labral tears and adhesive capsulitis, 

and he recommended work restrictions. In some of these reports, he referenced the accepted 

December 10, 2018 employment incident, i.e., the falling of a mooring line on appellant’s right arm. 

However, these reports do not contain an opinion that appellant sustained a diagnosed medical 

condition due to this accepted incident and, therefore, they are of no probative value in establishing 

an employment-related traumatic injury on December 10, 2018. The Board has held that medical 

 

4 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

5 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020); 

James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8 S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 2019); Robert G. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

9 T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 2020); 

Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
5

evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition or disability 

is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.10 Therefore, these reports of Dr. Suffis 

are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

Appellant submitted March 4 and 28, 2019 reports from Dr. Duff who collectively 

diagnosed right superior glenoid labrum and rotator cuff tears, strain of muscles/tendons of the 

right rotator cuff, and unspecified injury of muscles, fascia, and tendons of the right biceps long 

head. However, these reports are of no probative value in establishing an employment-related 

December 10, 2018 traumatic injury because Dr. Duff did not provide an opinion that appellant 

sustained a diagnosed medical condition due to the accepted employment incident. In his

March 28, 2019 report, Dr. Duff noted that appellant was being followed for right shoulder pain 

related to a reported work injury, but he merely reported appellant’s own belief regarding the cause 

of his right shoulder condition and did not provide his own opinion on causal relationship.11 As 

noted above, a report without an opinion on causal relationship is of no probative value in 

establishing an employment-related injury.12

In a form report dated January 2, 2019, Dr. Gonzalez-Dilan advised that appellant could 

work with restrictions and, in a form report February 14, 2019, Dr. Uniszkiewicz also indicated 

that he could work with restrictions. These reports also are of no probative value on the underlying 

issue of the case because they do not relate a diagnosed condition to the accepted December 10, 

2018 employment incident.13 

Appellant submitted a March 22, 2019 form report from Ms. Laurion, a physician assistant. 

However, this report is of no probative value regarding appellant’s claim because the Board has 

held that, under FECA, the report of a nonphysician, including a physician assistant, does not 

constitute probative medical evidence.14 

Additionally, the case record contains a January 16, 2019 x-ray and February 4, 2019 MRI 

scan of appellant’s right shoulder. These diagnostic studies standing alone lack probative value as 

they do not address whether employment factors caused the medical conditions diagnosed 

therein.15 

 

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

11 See A.L., Docket No. 18-1016 (issued May 6, 2020) (finding that entitlement to FECA benefits may not be based 

on surmise, conjecture, speculation, or on the employee’s own belief of a causal relationship).

12 See supra note 10.

13 Id.

14 R.S., Docket No. 16-1303 (issued December 2, 2016); L.L., Docket No. 13-0829 (issued August 20, 2013). See

5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). 

15 C.S., Docket No. 19-1279 (issued December 30, 2019).
6

As the medical evidence of record does not contain a rationalized opinion on causal 

relationship between appellant’s diagnosed conditions and the accepted December 10, 2018 

employment incident, the Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof. 

On appeal appellant asserts that there was a series of miscommunications by “all parties 

involved” and that he has established his claim. As the submitted evidence in the case record 

before OWCP at the time of its final decision contains no rationalized medical evidence addressing 

causal relationship, appellant has not met his burden of proof.16 

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

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a right shoulder 

condition causally related to the accepted December 10, 2018 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 8, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 13, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief 

Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

16 See D.S., Docket No. 18-0061 (issued May 29, 2018).