United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

W.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Atlantic City, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1302

Issued: February 7, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Michael D. Overman, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 24, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a February 13, 

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 to consider the merits of this case.

 

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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish lumbar, right hip, 

and left knee conditions causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 14, 2017 appellant, then a 59-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed degenerative conditions of the spine, right 

hip, and left knee due to carrying a heavy mail satchel, repetitive lifting and bending, prolonged 

walking, and climbing stairs while in the performance of duty on or before September 16, 2011. 

On the reverse side of the claim form, Postmaster F.R., indicated that appellant had never 

expressed that his position as a letter carrier had caused any of his medical issue, but instead 

attributed his condition to his Parkinson’s disease. It was also noted that appellant had been out 

on Family and Medical Leave Act since August 12, 2017, contemplating retirement on November

30, 2017 and he had been assigned a driving route for the three years prior to the date he stopped 

working. Appellant retired on November 30, 2017.

In a December 5, 2017 controversion letter, Postmaster F.R., again contended that 

appellant had never mentioned that his federal employment caused his injuries and that it was his 

Parkinson’s disease causing his physical issues. Additionally, it was noted that he worked a second 

job in the private sector, simultaneous with his federal employment, for years. 

In a development letter dated December 20, 2017, 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. 

In response, appellant submitted a February 23, 2018 narrative statement. He asserted that 

walking six to eight miles a day with frequent stair climbing in the performance of duty had caused

knee, back, and hip conditions. Dr. Alvin Ong, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, performed 

a total left knee arthroplasty in August 2011. In 2013, appellant experienced lumbar symptoms

and hip pain. Dr. Zachary Post, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, performed a total right hip 

arthroplasty in November 2014. Dr. Paul Marcotte, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, performed an 

L3, L4, and L5 laminectomy in 2017. Appellant submitted additional evidence.

In an April 13, 2017 letter, Postmaster F.R., confirmed that appellant’s job duties required 

carrying up to 35 pounds continuously, with driving, walking, climbing steps, bending, stooping, 

twisting, and kneeling up to eight hours a day. 

In a May 1, 2017 report, Dr. Maureen Gottfried, an osteopathic physician Board-certified 

in neurology and psychiatry, found appellant able to perform the primary functions of his letter 

carrier position. 

In a December 20, 2017 report, Dr. Jerald P. Vizzone, an osteopathic physician Boardcertified in orthopedic surgery, noted that, since 1987, appellant had worked various postal 

delivery routes, causing “progressive injury due to wear and tear of [appellant’s] left knee, right 
3

hip, and low back.” Appellant underwent a total left knee arthroplasty on August 1, 2011 a total 

left right hip arthroplasty on November 6, 2014, and lumbar surgery in August 2017. Dr. Vizzone 

diagnosed acute bilateral L5-S1 radiculopathy as demonstrated by a February 2017 

electrodiagnostic study, internal derangement of the left knee, left meniscal tear, left knee 

osteoarthritis, lumbar degeneration, severe lumbar stenosis from L2 through S1, most severe at 

L4-5, internal derangement and osteoarthritis of the right hip, and status post total left knee 

arthroplasty. He opined that the diagnosed conditions were directly causally related “to the 

significant wear and tear related to [appellant’s] job demands” as a letter carrier. 

By decision dated February 26, 2018, OWCP accepted that the identified work factors had 

occurred as alleged, but denied the claim as causal relationship had not been established. 

In a letter postmarked March 5, 2018, appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing 

before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, held on July 25, 2018. During 

the hearing, counsel contended that Dr. Vizzone’s opinion was of sufficient probative value to 

warrant further development. Appellant submitted additional evidence.

In a February 8, 2018 statement, appellant attributed his physical deterioration to wear and 

tear caused by his postal duties, with no contribution from private sector employment or 

Parkinson’s disease. 

In a July 20, 2011 report, Dr. Ong noted appellant’s employment as a letter carrier, with a 

history of left knee arthroscopy in November 2010 and right knee arthroscopy on an unspecified 

date. He diagnosed end-stage degenerative joint disease (DJD) of the left knee and mild DJD of 

the right knee. Dr. Ong performed a total left knee arthroplasty on August 1, 2011. In an August 2, 

2011 progress note, he indicated that appellant had a “long history” of DJD of the left knee, with 

a recent increase of symptoms. 

In an October 16, 2013 report, Dr. Alan S. Hilibrand, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

noted an eight-year history of lumbar pain, with increased symptoms during the previous five 

months when carrying a mail satchel while at work. Chiropractic manipulation reduced his pain 

symptoms and right-sided radiculopathy. Dr. Hilibrand diagnosed spinal stenosis and 

recommended additional physical therapy. He provided a February 5, 2014 follow-up report 

noting that an epidural injection had reduced appellant’s pain symptoms. 

Dr. Gottfried provided an April 11, 2016 report noting the gradual onset of a rhythmic right 

upper extremity tremor and gait disturbance seven months previously. She diagnosed akinetic 

rigid syndrome. In a February 28, 2017 electromyography and nerve conduction velocity study 

report, Dr. Gottfried noted a sensory motor axonopathy with secondary demyelination affecting

both lower extremities. She also diagnosed acute bilateral L5-S1 radiculopathy. 

In an October 12, 2017 report, Dr. Marcotte noted a normal postoperative course following 

L3, L4, and L5 laminectomies performed on August 25, 2017 with a series of routine checks 

performed by Benjamin G. Hurtig, a physician assistant. 

Appellant retired from the employing establishment effective November 30, 2017. 
4

By decision dated October 5, 2018, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

February 26, 2018 decision, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to 

establish causal relationship. 

On November 15, 2018 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and

submitted a September 28, 2018 report by Dr. Zachary D. Post, an associate of Dr. Hilibrand. 

Dr. Post indicated that he first examined appellant on September 24, 2014 for complaints of right 

hip pain, which appellant attributed to carrying a mail satchel up and down stairs while in the 

performance of duty. X-rays demonstrated advanced osteoarthritis of the right hip. At that time,

Dr. Post opined that repetitive work activities, “including lifting and carrying the mailbag over a 

course of 30 years contributed to the advanced degeneration of his right hip.” He further noted 

that appellant underwent a total right hip arthroplasty on November 6, 2014 and after presenting 

with lumbar pain on December 9, 2014 he was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease. Dr. Post 

explained that on June 27, 2018 he diagnosed osteoarthritis of the right knee and administered an 

intraarticular injection and a magnetic resonance imaging scan revealed a small medial meniscal 

tear with degenerative changes throughout the knee. He concluded by opining that within a 

reasonable degree of medical certainty, appellant’s “right hip arthritis, which ultimately led to 

[appellant’s] replacement, had been exacerbated and was a direct reflection” of work activities 

including “walking multiple miles a day, carrying a heavy bag, and going up and down stairs 

certainly would have contributed to the advanced degeneration of his right hip.”

By decision dated February 13, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period of FECA,3that 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.4 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.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 

 

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

153 (1989). 

4

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 

40 ECAB 312 (1988). 

5 K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
5

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 factors 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 factors.9

In any case where a preexisting condition involving the same part of the body is present 

and the issue of causal relationship therefore involves aggravation, acceleration, or precipitation, 

the physician must provide a rationalized medical opinion that differentiates between the effects 

of the work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met not his burden of proof to establish lumbar, right 

hip, and left knee conditions causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

In reports from July 20 through August 2, 2011, Dr. Ong noted appellant’s federal 

employment as a letter carrier with a long history of DJD of the left knee, with a recent increase 

in symptoms. Dr. Gottfried submitted reports dated from April 11, 2016 through February 28, 

2017 which diagnosed akinetic rigid syndrome, sensory and motor axonopathy of the bilateral 

lower extremities with secondary demyelination, and acute bilateral L5-S1 radiculopathy. In an 

October 12, 2017 report, Dr. Marcotte noted a normal postoperative course following August 25, 

2017 lumbar laminectomies. However, these physicians did not address whether the accepted 

work factors had caused or contributed to the diagnosed conditions. 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.

 

6 M.L., Docket No. 19-0813 (issued November 26, 2019); 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 T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

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

9 M.L., supra note 6; M.V., id.; Victor J. Woodhams, supra note 6.

10 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013); 

N.C., Docket No. 19-1191 (issued December 19, 2019); R.D., Docket No. 18-1551 (issued March 1, 2019).

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

July 6, 2018). J.B., Docket No. 17-2021 (issued August 8, 2018).
6

Dr. Hilibrand noted on October 16, 2013 that carrying a mail satchel had aggravated 

appellant’s lumbar pain symptoms, but did not indicate if the accepted work factors had affected 

the diagnosed lumbar degenerative disease. The Board has held that a report is of limited probative

value regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale explaining how a given 

medical condition/disability was related to employment factors.12 Additionally, the Board has held 

that pain is a symptom and not a compensable medical diagnosis.13 Therefore, this report is 

insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

In a December 20, 2017 report, Dr. Vizzone opined that appellant’s duties as a letter carrier 

caused progressive injury due to significant wear and tear of his left knee, right hip, and low back. 

Similarly, Dr. Post asserted in his September 28, 2018 report that the accepted work factors of 

walking, carrying a mail satchel, and climbing stairs exacerbated and directly contributed to 

appellant’s right hip arthritis. As noted above, the Board has held that a report is of limited 

probative value regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale explaining 

how a given medical condition/disability was related to employment factors.14 Therefore, these 

reports are also insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

OWCP also received several imaging and electrodiagnostic study reports. The Board has 

held that reports of diagnostic tests lack probative value as they do not provide an opinion on 

causal relationship between the accepted employment factors and a diagnosed condition.15 

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence sufficient to establish an 

injury causally related to the accepted employment incident, the Board finds that he has not met 

his burden of proof.

On appeal, counsel contends that Dr. Post’s opinion is sufficiently rationalized to establish 

causal relationship. As noted above, Dr. Post did not explain with rationale how and why the 

accepted work factors would have caused or aggravated the diagnosed conditions.

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 lumbar, right 

hip, and left knee conditions causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

 

12 See Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017).

13 T.G., 19-0904 (issued November 25, 2019); R.C., Docket No. 19-0376 (issued July 15, 2019).

14 Supra note 12.

15 See C.F., Docket No. 18-1156 (issued January 22, 2019); M.M., Docket No. 19-0061 (issued 

November 21, 2019).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 13, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 7, 2020

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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