United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Middleburg Heights, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0997

Issued: October 21, 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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 9, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a March 14, 2019 

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 his burden of proof to establish a left foot condition 

causally related to the accepted factors of his 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 June 18, 2018 appellant, then a 56-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained a “lesion plantar nerve left” due to factors of his 

federal employment. He indicated that he first became aware of his condition and first realized it 

was caused or aggravated by his federal employment duties on June 12, 2017. Appellant did not 

stop working.

In a development letter dated June 26, 2018, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies 

of his claim and instructed him as to the factual and medical evidence necessary to establish his 

claim. It afforded him 30 days to submit additional evidence and respond to its inquiries.

By decision dated August 6, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

evidence of record did not establish that any injury, accident, or employment exposure occurred

and therefore, the factual component of fact of injury had not been established. It concluded that 

he had not met the requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

On August 13, 2018 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

Appellant submitted a June 12, 2017 report from Dr. Joseph R. Bartal, a podiatrist, who 

diagnosed lesion of plantar nerve, left, and indicated that appellant had suffered a similar condition 

a year prior in the right second intermetatarsal space. 

A telephonic hearing was held before an OWCP hearing representative on 

January 15, 2019. Appellant testified that he had worked as a letter carrier for 21 years and then 

retired in September 2018. He stated that, prior to his retirement, his federal duties required him 

to walk for 1.5 hours per day, including walking on uneven surfaces and across lawns. The hearing 

representative held the case record open for 30 days for the submission of additional evidence. 

OWCP did not receive additional evidence.

By decision dated March 14, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It accepted that his

federal employment required walking on uneven surfaces and crossing lawns as alleged, but denied 

the claim finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal 

relationship between his diagnosed left foot condition and the accepted factors of his federal 

employment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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 

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 

 

3

Id.
3

injury.4 These are the essential elements of every compensation claim regardless of whether the 

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

5

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, an employee must submit 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 question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.7 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factor(s) must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background.8 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be 

expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical 

rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s 

specific employment factor(s).9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a left foot 

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

The Board finds that Dr. Bartal did not adequately explain how appellant sustained the 

claimed injury. While he diagnosed a lesion of the left plantar nerve, Dr. Bartal did not identify 

the specific employment factors alleged by appellant and did not provide a pathophysiological 

explanation as to how those activities either caused or contributed to appellant’s diagnosed 

condition.

10

 He did not opine that appellant’s left foot condition was a direct result of the accepted 

factors of his federal employment. Medical 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.11 Additionally, the Board has held that neither the mere fact that a disease or 

condition manifests itself during a period of employment nor the belief that the disease or condition 

 

4 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).

5 K.V. and M.E., id.; Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

6 R.G., Docket No. 19-0233 (issued July 16, 2019). See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Ruby I. 

Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).

7 E.M., Docket No. 18-1599 (issued March 7, 2019); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

8 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018).

9

Id.; Victor J. Woodhams, supra note 6.

10 Supra note 8 and 9.

11 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K.,Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
4

was caused or aggravated by employment factors or incidents is sufficient to establish a causal 

relationship.12

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence to establish his claim of a left 

foot condition causally related to the accepted employment factors, he has not met his burden of 

proof.

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 left foot 

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 14, 2019 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

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

12 See J.L., Docket No. 18-1804 (issued April12, 2019).