United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Cleveland, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0698

Issued: September 3, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 14, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an August 29, 

2018 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish left foot and ankle 

conditions causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 26, 2017 appellant, then a 35-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that factors of her federal employment, including prolonged 

walking, caused plantar fasciitis, tendinitis, and neuritis of the left foot and ankle.

3

 She indicated 

that she first became aware of her claimed condition and related them to factors of her federal 

employment on September 8, 2017. Appellant stopped work on September 21, 2017.

In a September 21, 2017 work slip, Dr. Alexander B. Craig, a podiatrist, prescribed a

controlled ankle motion (CAM) walker boot and restricted appellant to light duty.

In a development letter dated October 6, 2017, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of medical and factual 

evidence needed, including a detailed description of the employment duties alleged to have caused 

or contributed to the claimed left foot and ankle conditions, and a narrative report from her 

physician explaining how and why those events would cause those conditions. OWCP afforded 

appellant 30 days to respond.

In response, appellant provided September 21 and October 12, 2017 reports by Dr. Craig,

noting her August 27, 2015 left ankle sprain accepted under File No. xxxxxx527. Dr. Craig

diagnosed a left anterior talofibular ligament sprain, left plantar fasciitis, left Achilles tendinitis, 

an acquired left heel deformity, equinus deformity of the left foot, and left foot and ankle pain.4 

In an October 26, 2017 report, he diagnosed nerve entrapment in the left lower extremity.

In a November 8, 2017 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Craig noted a history of left 

ankle discomfort while walking on September 8, 2017. He restricted appellant to limited-duty

work. In an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) of even date, Dr. Craig indicated that 

appellant had injured her left foot and ankle on September 8, 2017 “after stepping down from the 

mail truck into a ditch.” He diagnosed left plantar fasciitis with possible Baxter’s nerve 

entrapment. Dr. Craig checked a box marked “No” indicating that the diagnosed conditions were 

not caused by a prior September 8, 2017 employment incident.

By decision dated December 6, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the identified work 

factors had occurred as alleged. It found that appellant had not established how often or how far 

she had walked while in the performance of duty. OWCP noted that Dr. Craig had attributed 

appellant’s left foot and ankle conditions to the August 2015 left ankle injury accepted under File 

No. xxxxxx527. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an 

injury as defined by FECA.

 

3 OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx477. Under File No. xxxxxx527, appellant has an 

accepted traumatic injury claim for left ankle sprain sustained on August 27, 2015 when she stepped down into a ditch 

while exiting her delivery vehicle while in the performance of duty. 

 

4

In an October 3, 2017 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study report, Dr. Joel Rosner, a Board-certified 

radiologist, noted a history of an August 2015 left ankle sprain with persistent symptoms. The study demonstrated a 

remote partial tear of the left talofibular ligament and stable mild scarring of the left calcaneofibular ligament.
3

On December 18, 2017 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before an 

OWCP hearing representative. At the telephonic hearing held on June 14, 2018, she contended 

that Dr. Craig had attributed appellant’s left foot and ankle conditions to the August 27, 2015 left 

ankle sprain and that she did not develop plantar fasciitis from prolonged walking following that 

injury, as was previously diagnosed. Appellant explained that her assigned duties required walking 

and stair climbing three to six hours a day on a variety of uneven surfaces. Following the hearing, 

she submitted a statement noting that her duties as a city carrier included prolonged walking and 

climbing in all weather conditions. Appellant also provided a December 11, 2017 work slip from

Dr. Craig restricting her from work for the period December 11 to 26, 2017 due to “foot pain.”

By decision dated August 29, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

December 6, 2017 decision as modified to find that appellant had established the factual 

component of her claim. He further found, however, that the medical evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish that her diagnosed left foot and ankle conditions were causally related to

the accepted factors of her federal employment. The hearing representative also directed OWCP 

to administratively combine File No. xxxxxx527 with the present claim as they both concerned 

the left foot and ankle.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial 

evidence, 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 time limitation period of 

FECA, that an injury was sustained 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 every compensation claim regardless of whether the 

claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.7

In an occupational disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (1) medical 

evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation 

is claimed; (2) a factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or 

contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence 

establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified 

by the claimant.8

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

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.9 The opinion of the physician must be based on a 

 

 

5 Supra note 1.

6 K.V., Docket No. 18-0947 (issued March 4, 2019); M.E., Docket No. 18-1135 (issued January 4, 2019); Kathryn 

Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383, 388 (1994).

7 K.V., id.; M.E., id.; K.B., Docket No. 17-1997 (issued July 27, 2018). 

8 E.M., Docket No. 18-0275 (issued June 8, 2018).

9 A.M., Docket No. 18-0685 (issued October 26, 2018).
4

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.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish left foot and 

ankle conditions causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. 

Appellant submitted a series of reports by Dr. Craig. These reports note several 

mechanisms of injury, but Dr. Craig had not opined that any of the mechanisms of injury were the 

cause of her diagnosed medical conditions. As his opinions did not provide an opinion that the 

established employment factors caused the diagnosed conditions, his reports are of no probative 

value. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause 

of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.11 These 

reports, therefore, are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

In another report Dr. Craig checked a box marked “No” in response to a question asking 

whether the diagnosed conditions had been caused by the September 8, 2017 employment incident. 

The Board finds this report is unsupportive of appellant’s claim and is therefore insufficient to 

meet her burden of proof. Thus, the Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof. 

On appeal counsel contends that the claimed conditions were caused by a variety of factors,

including the prior traumatic injury. As noted above, the medical evidence of record did not 

provide sufficient medical rationale to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

12

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence to establish the diagnosed 

conditions were causally related to the accepted employment factors, the Board finds that she has 

not met her burden of proof to establish her claim.

Appellant may submit new evidence 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 left foot and 

ankle conditions causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. 

 

10 E.V., Docket No. 18-0106 (issued April 5, 2018).

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

12 The Board notes that counsel also asserts that OWCP should have combined the present claim with File No. 

xxxxxx527, as they both pertained to left foot and ankle conditions. Additionally, the Board notes that in the 

August 29, 2018 decision, the hearing representative indicated that the case records should be administratively 

combined. Therefore, on return of the case record, OWCP should consider combining File No. xxxxxx527 with the 

present claim. 
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 29, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 3, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board