United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION FACILITY, Bismarck, ND, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1001

Issued: October 26, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 April 16, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 30, 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant sustained bone spurs, a possible rotator cuff condition, or 

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 20, 2018 appellant, then a 58-year-old parcel post distribution machine 

operator, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained bone spurs, 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

a possible rotator cuff problem, tendinitis, and additional disorders due to repetitive trauma. He 

first became aware of his claimed conditions on November 5, 2015 and attributed them to his 

federal employment on July 1, 2017. Appellant missed no time from work and performed limitedduty employment beginning February 13, 2018.

Appellant, in a February 13, 2018 statement accompanying his claim, related that he 

experienced bilateral shoulder pain greater on the right side and described his work duties. 

In a February 13, 2013 employing establishment temporary reassignment to light-duty 

form, Dr. Robert Bruce Canham, an orthopedic surgeon, found that appellant should perform light 

duty from February 13 to 28, 2018 lifting no more than five pounds. 

The employing establishment, on February 22, 2018, controverted the claim as appellant 

had not submitted sufficient supporting medical evidence. 

By development letter dated February 27, 2018, OWCP requested that appellant submit 

additional factual and medical evidence in support of his claim, including a detailed report from 

his attending physician addressing the causal relationship between any diagnosed condition and 

identified work factors. 

Appellant submitted a March 5, 2018 statement describing the employment factors to 

which he attributed his condition, including lifting, pushing, and pulling mail. 

Dr. Anthony M. Tello, an internist, indicated on November 5, 2015 that he had treated 

appellant on that date. He found that appellant should only work 40 hours per day “due to right 

shoulder strain and supraspinatus tendinitis of the shoulder.”

By decision dated March 30, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. 

It found that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to demonstrate that he sustained a 

diagnosed condition causally related to the accepted work factors, as his physician had not 

provided a rationalized medical opinion establishing an employment-related injury or condition.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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 

United States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was filed within the applicable time 

limitation; that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged; and that any 

disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the 

employment injury.3 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4

 

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 Tracey P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

4 See Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004).
3

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty 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;5(2) a factual 

statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or 

occurrence of the disease or condition;6and (3) medical evidence establishing the employment 

factors identified by the claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for which 

compensation is claimed or, stated differently, medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed 

condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant.7

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 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 

the specific employment factors identified by the employee.8

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained 

bone spurs, a possible rotator cuff condition, or tendinitis causally related to the accepted factors 

of his federal employment.

In a February 13, 2018 form report, Dr. Canham opined that appellant should perform light 

duty from February 13 to 28, 2018. As Dr. Canham did not provide findings on examination, a 

causation finding, or a medical diagnosis, his report is of limited probative value.9 

On November 5, 2015 Dr. Tello diagnosed right shoulder strain and supraspinatus 

tendinitis. He found that appellant should not work over 40 hours per week. Dr. Tello, however, 

did not address the cause of the diagnosed conditions. 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.10

On appeal appellant asserts that OWCP failed to consider the medical evidence from

Dr. Canham and erred in failing to accept his claim. As discussed, Dr. Canham’s report is 

insufficient to support his claim. OWCP advised appellant on February 27, 2018 of the type of 

evidence necessary to support his claim, including the submission of a reasoned report from his 

physician explaining how any diagnosed condition was caused or aggravated by employment 

 

5 Michael R. Shaffer, 55 ECAB 386 (2004).

6 Marlon Vera, 54 ECAB 834 (2003); Roger Williams, 52 ECAB 468 (2001).

7 Beverly A. Spencer, 55 ECAB 501 (2004).

8 See J.R., Docket No. 17-1781 (issued January 16, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008).

9 See C.S., Docket No .14-0269 (issued May 12, 2014); P.A., Docket No. 10-2189 (issued June 21, 2011).

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

factors. As he did not submit such evidence, he has not met his burden of proof to establish his 

claim.11

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 that he sustained 

bone spurs, a possible rotator cuff condition, or tendinitis causally related to the accepted factors 

of his federal employment.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 30, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 26, 2018

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

 

11 See J.D., Docket No. 17-2016 (issued April 16, 2018).