United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Layton, UT, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1085

Issued: October 21, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 15, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 16, 2018 merit 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.

 

1 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred andeighty days from October 16, 2018, the date of OWCP’s last decision, was Sunday, 

April 14, 2019. As the last day of the filing period fell on a weekend, appellant had until Monday, April 15, 2019 to 

file an appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(2). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards received the current appeal on April 15, 

2019, rendering the appeal timely filed. Id.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a left shoulder 

condition in the performance of duty.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 29, 2018 appellant, then a 48-year-old mail carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained a partial left rotator cuff tear causally related 

to factors of her federal employment. She related that she experienced pain and weakness 

performing her daily work duties, noting that her pain improved when she was off work. Appellant 

did not stop work.

In a development letter dated September 12, 2018, OWCP advised appellant of the factual 

and medical evidence necessary to establish her claim, including a detailed description of the 

employment activities that she believed caused or contributed to her condition. It provided a 

questionnaire for her to complete and return. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the 

required evidence.

Thereafter, OWCP received a July 30, 2018 report from Dr. Michael S. Dee, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Dee evaluated appellant for increasing left shoulder pain that 

had begun around eight months earlier. He noted that she had a history of bulging cervical discs. 

Dr. Dee obtained a history of appellant experiencing “increasing left shoulder pain over the years 

as she works as a mail carrier.” He recommended diagnostic testing.

In a progress report dated August 8, 2018, Dr. Dee diagnosed tendinitis of the left rotator 

cuff after reviewing a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan.3

In a September 26, 2018 e-mail, a supervisor with the employing establishment described 

appellant’s work duties. 

By decision dated October 16, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that she had 

failed to factually establish the basis for her claim. It found that she had not provided a detailed 

description of the work factors that she believed caused or contributed to her condition, noting that 

she had not responded to its request for additional factual information. OWCP additionally 

determined that the medical evidence was insufficient to support that appellant had sustained a 

diagnosed condition causally related to her employment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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 

 

3 An August 2, 2018 MRI scan revealed mild subscapularis tendinopathy, a partial thickness bursal surface tearing 

of the distal subscapularis tendon, andmild acromioclavicular joint arthropathy.

4

Supra note 2.
3

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 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. 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. 9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a left shoulder 

condition in the performance of duty.

Appellant filed an occupational disease claim on September 5, 2018 alleging that she 

sustained left shoulder pain and weakness while performing her federal employment duties. She 

did not submit additional factual evidence in support of her occupational disease claim or respond 

to OWCP’s development letter requesting a further description of the employment factors to which 

she attributed her condition. 

As noted, appellant has the burden of proof to submit a detailed description of the

employment factors or conditions that she believes caused or adversely affected the condition or 

conditions for which she claims compensation.10 She failed to respond to OWCP’s request that 

 

5

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

153 (1989).

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); 

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

8 R.M., Docket No. 18-0976 (issued January 3, 2019); P.D., Docket No. 17-1885 (issued September 17, 2018).

9 H.B., Docket No. 18-0781 (issued September 5, 2018).

10 T.W., Docket No. 18-0788 (issued July 22, 2019); B.J., Docket No. 16-1614 (issued September 21, 2017).
4

she describe in greater detail the employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to her 

left shoulder condition. Consequently, the Board finds that appellant has failed to establish the 

employment factors or exposures alleged to have caused her injury.11 As she has not established 

an employment factor or exposure alleged to have caused an injury, it is unnecessary to consider 

the medical evidence with respect to causal relationship.12

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 her burden of proof to establish a left shoulder 

condition in the performance of duty.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 16, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 21, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

11 Id. 

12 J.C., Docket No. 16-1663 (issued January 18, 2017).