United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Cleveland, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0311

Issued: July 2, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 27, 2018 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an 

October 9, 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 his burden of proof to establish an occupational 

disease 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

This case has previously been before the Board. The facts and circumstances as set forth 

in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as 

follows.3

On June 3, 2016 appellant, then a 54-year-old electronic technician, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he suffered pain in his right wrist, forearm, and elbow

due to federal employment duties. He noted that he first became aware of his right arm condition 

on July 17, 2000 and realized its relationship to his federal employment on July 30, 2014. On the 

claim form, appellant explained that he delayed in filing this claim as he believed his prior accepted 

claim remained open.4 The record does not indicate that he stopped work. 

In a March 1, 2016 statement, appellant described his right arm symptoms, relating that 

loss of strength made his job difficult since he was required to frequently use tools that required 

both repetitive rotating motion while simultaneously exerting extreme force. He noted that he was 

not totally disabled from all work, but asked that the tasks that required the use of a forceful torque 

motion, strenuous pulling, and lifting be eliminated. 

By decision dated August 31, 2016, OWCP denied the claim finding that appellant had not 

submitted sufficient information to establish that the employment events occurred as alleged. It

also noted that he had not established a diagnosed medical condition causally related to an alleged 

employment event. 

Appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration on December 2, 2016. By decision 

dated March 1, 2017, OWCP modified the August 31, 2016 decision finding that appellant had 

established that the claimed employment events occurred as alleged. However, the claim remained 

denied because the medical evidence of record failed to establish causal relationship between his 

work exposure and diagnosed medical condition.5 

Appellant subsequently appealed to the Board. By decision dated September 21, 2017, the 

Board affirmed the March 1, 2017 OWCP decision, finding that he had not met his burden of proof

to establish his occupational disease claim, as the medical evidence of record was insufficient to

establish causal relationship between the accepted employment factors and a diagnosed medical 

condition.

6

 

On July 12, 2018 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted a 

December 7, 2017 progress report from Dr. Harry A. Hoyen, Board-certified in orthopedic and 

hand surgery. Dr. Hoyen noted appellant’s history of severe right wrist and forearm injuries with

 

3 Docket No. 17-1141 (issued September 21, 2017). 

4 The present claim was assigned File No. xxxxxx755. In a claim adjudicated by OWCP under File No. xxxxxx543, 

OWCP accepted that on July 17, 2000 appellant sustained an open fracture of the right radius when his right arm was 

caught in a conveyor belt. It expanded acceptance of the claim to include right forearm keloid scarring. 

5 OWCP thereafter administratively combined File Nos. xxxxxx755 and xxxxxx543, with File No. xxxxxx543 

serving as the master file. 

6 Supra note 3.
3

a complaint of continued moderate-to-severe radiating pain. He described examination findings 

of limited forearm motion, with tenderness over the distal radial ulnar joint (DRUJ) and wrist, and 

some crepitus. Right wrist x-ray demonstrated remote and healed trauma with malunion fractures 

and post-traumatic DRUJ degeneration. Dr. Hoyen advised that appellant’s right wrist condition 

had progressed overtime, opining that this was due to the original fracture injury that had healed 

in a malunion position which placed the wrist and DRUJ in a biomechanically stressed position. 

He further indicated that this had been compounded by the repetitive stress of appellant’s job that 

required loading of the wrist and forearm on a daily and near continuous basis. 

By decision dated October 9, 2018, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between the 

accepted employment factors and a diagnosed medical condition.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA7 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 of FECA,8that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and 

that any disability or specific condition for which compensation in claimed is causally related to 

the employment injury.9 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.10

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; (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 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.11

To establish causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant disability 

claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit rationalized medical 

opinion evidence supporting such causal relationship.12 The opinion of the physician must be 

 

7 Supra note 2.

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

153 (1989).

9

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

10 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).

11 Id.

12 J.T., Docket No. 18-1755 (issued April 4, 2019).
4

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.13 This medical opinion must include an accurate history of the employee’s 

employment injury and must explain how the condition is related to the injury. The weight of 

medical evidence is determined by its reliability, its probative value, its convincing quality, the 

care of analysis manifested, and the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s 

opinion.14

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

Preliminarily, the Board notes that it is unnecessary for the Board to consider the evidence 

appellant submitted prior to the issuance of OWCP’s March 1, 2017 decision because the Board 

has already considered that evidence in its September 21, 2017 decision.15 Findings made in prior 

Board decisions are res judicata absent any further review by OWCP under section 8128 of 

FECA.16

With his July 12, 2018 reconsideration request appellant submitted a December 7, 2017 

report in which Dr. Hoyen, his attending hand surgeon, advised that the original injury had healed 

in a malunion position which placed the wrist and DRUJ in a biomechanically stressed position, 

with x-ray evidence of DRUJ degeneration. Dr. Hoyen further indicated that this had been 

compounded by the repetitive stress of appellant’s job that required loading of the wrist and 

forearm on a daily and near continuous basis. 

The Board finds that, while Dr. Hoyen’s December 7, 2017 report was not completely 

rationalized, it raises an uncontroverted inference of causal relationship between his current 

degenerative right wrist condition and the accepted factors of his federal employment. This report 

is therefore sufficient to require OWCP to further develop the evidence of record.17

It is well established that, proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and, while 

the claimant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares 

responsibility in the development of the evidence to see that justice is done.18 

The Board will therefore remand the case for further development. On remand the Board

shall, prepare a statement of accepted facts, and thereafter obtain a rationalized opinion from an 

appropriate Board-certified physician as to whether appellant’s current right wrist condition was 

 

13 X.V., Docket No. 18-1360 (issued April 12, 2019).

14 T.W., Docket No. 18-1436 (issued April 14, 2019).

15 Supra note 3.

16 T.H., Docket No.18-1585 (issued March 22, 2019).

17 Supra note 13.

18 A.S., Docket No. 18-1381 (issued April 8, 2019).
5

causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment, either directly or through 

aggravation, precipitation, or acceleration.19 Following this and any other such further 

development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision. 

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 9, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside, and the case is remanded to OWCP for proceedings 

consistent with this opinion of the Board.

Issued: July 2, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

19 Supra note 13.