United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, VILLAGE STATION 

POST OFFICE, New York, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1157

Issued: March 26, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas S. Harkins, 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 May 17, 2018 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from December 7, 2017 

and February 23, 2018 merit decisions 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.

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that the 

acceptance of her claim should be expanded to include additional left knee conditions causally 

 

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

related to her accepted April 27, 2016 employment injury; and (2) whether appellant has met her 

burden of proof to establish total disability from June 19 through July 28, 2016 due to the accepted 

April 27, 2016 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 3, 2016 appellant, then a 39-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on April 27, 2016 she sprained her left knee as a result of “a runaway 

carrier cart” while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on May 4, 2016. Appellant 

received continuation of pay for the period May 5 to June 18, 2016. 

OWCP, by development letter dated May 26, 2016, noted that appellant’s claim initially 

appeared to be a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time from work. It approved a 

limited amount of medical expenses without considering the merits of her claim. OWCP reopened 

appellant’s claim as she had not yet returned to work in a full-time capacity. It advised her of the 

deficiencies of her claim. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond to its questionnaire and 

submit additional medical evidence. 

On June 3, 2016 appellant responded to OWCP’s development letter. She explained that 

while she was going down stairs to deliver mail, she noticed that her cart was about to roll into the 

street. Appellant fell on her left side onto the street as she tried to catch it. She then experienced 

pain in her knee which caused limitations.

Appellant submitted a May 7, 2016 left knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan 

report by Dr. Anthony Italiano, a Board-certified radiologist. Dr. Italiano provided an impression 

of moderate osteoarthrosis. He also provided an impression that a nondisplaced undersurface tear 

at the posterior horn/body of the medial meniscus could not be excluded. Dr. Italiano found edema 

within the infrapatellar fat, posterior to the patellar tendon, laterally, which was seen in the setting 

of patella tendon-lateral femoral condyle friction syndrome as described in his findings. 

Appellant also submitted an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated June 1, 2016 

in which Dr. Rohr Gabriela, an emergency medicine specialist, diagnosed left knee contusion, 

ligament injury, and edema. Dr. Gabriela checked a box marked “yes” as to whether the diagnosed 

conditions were caused or aggravated by the employment activity of a fall on April 27, 2016. He 

noted that appellant was totally disabled from May 3 through 27, 2016. 

A June 2, 2016 report by Dr. Lam Quan, an attending Board-certified physiatrist, indicated 

that appellant was involved in a work-related injury on April 27, 2016. He noted her complaint of

left knee pain and reported examination findings. Dr. Quan provided an impression that appellant 

was involved in a work-related injury with subsequent onset of a left upper arm injury and left 

knee pain. He advised that she was temporarily totally disabled from work. Dr. Quan opined that, 

with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the above-mentioned accident/injury was a 

competent and provocative cause of appellant’s impairment and/or disability and that there was a 

causal relationship between the April 27, 2016 incident and noted injuries.

In a Form CA-20 report of even date, Dr. Quan related a history that on April 27, 2016 

appellant fell on a sidewalk while trying to grab her mail cart. He reiterated his diagnoses of left 
3

knee and left upper arm injuries. Dr. Quan checked a box marked “yes,” as to whether the 

diagnosed conditions were caused or aggravated by an employment activity. He indicated that 

appellant was totally disabled commencing May 27, 2016. Dr. Quan advised that she could 

resume work on July 14, 2016 following her reexamination.

OWCP subsequently received a May 27, 2016 medical report by Dr. Joseph Weinstein, an 

attending orthopedic surgeon, who related a history that appellant was injured at work on 

April 27, 2016. Dr. Weinstein discussed her knee complaints and limitations and reported findings 

on physical and x-ray examination. He diagnosed internal derangement and meniscal tear of the 

left knee.

On June 30, 2016 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left knee contusion.

On July 28, 2016 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for leave without 

pay (LWOP) for the period June 19 through July 28, 2016. She submitted a July 8, 2016 report 

from Dr. Weinstein who again related a history that appellant was injured at work on April 27, 

2016 and diagnosed internal derangement and meniscal tear of the left knee. Dr. Weinstein

recommended that she return to light-duty work.

OWCP later received a July 8, 2016 letter in which Dr. Weinstein released appellant to 

return to sedentary light-duty work with restrictions on July 11, 2016.

In an August 11, 2016 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant provide 

additional factual and medical evidence, including a rationalized medical report from her physician

which explained how her diagnosed internal derangement and meniscal tear of the left knee and 

claimed disability were caused or aggravated by her accepted April 27, 2016 employment injury. 

It afforded her 30 days to respond.

An additional report dated August 11, 2016 by Dr. Quan reiterated his diagnoses and 

opinion on causal relationship. He advised that appellant had “50 percent temporary mild-tomoderate disability” and had not yet returned to work.

By decision dated September 21, 2016, OWCP denied expansion of the acceptance of 

appellant’s claim to include the additional conditions of internal derangement and meniscal tear of 

the left knee. It found that the medical evidence of record did not contain a rationalized opinion 

sufficient to support a causal relationship between her internal derangement and meniscal tear of 

the left knee and the accepted April 27, 2016 employment injury.

OWCP received further reports dated August 22 and 26, 2016 from Dr. Weinstein who

continued to note a history that appellant was injured at work on April 27, 2016, diagnose internal 

derangement and meniscal tear of the left knee, and advise that she was capable of returning to 

light-duty work.

By decision dated September 28, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for total disability 

compensation for the period June 19 through July 28, 2016. It found that the medical evidence of 

record did not contain a rationalized opinion sufficient to establish additional left knee conditions 

or total disability causally related to the accepted April 27, 2016 employment injury. 
4

OWCP received additional reports from Dr. Quan and Dr. Weinstein. In an October 13, 

2016 report, Dr. Quan noted that appellant had attempted to return to light-duty work on July 11, 

2016, but was sent home. He reported physical examination findings and reviewed the May 7, 

2016 left knee MRI scan results. Dr. Quan reiterated his impression that appellant was involved 

in a work-related injury with subsequent onset of a left upper arm injury and left knee pain. He 

determined that she had “33 percent temporary mild-to-moderate disability” and noted that she 

had not returned to work. Dr. Quan opined that appellant sustained a work-related contusional 

injury to her left knee on April 27, 2016. He indicated that the MRI scan was unable to rule out a 

meniscal tear. Dr. Quan further indicated that given appellant’s persistent pain despite physical 

therapy and clinical findings of a positive McMurray’s test, which generally suggested a meniscal 

tear, her initial impression of left knee injury and pain now included a meniscus tear by her 

orthopedist. He concluded that the mechanism of injury, being a fall and contusion to the left knee,

can be the inciting injury for this type of diagnosis.

Dr. Weinstein, in a November 8, 2016 duty status report (Form CA-17) indicated that 

appellant had left knee pain due to her April 27, 2017 work injury. He released her and she 

returned to full-time work with no restrictions on November 9, 2016.

In reports dated September 30, November 21, and December 22, 2016, and March 23, 

2017 and a letter dated March 23, 2017, Dr. Weinstein again noted appellant’s April 27, 2016 

accepted work injury and his diagnoses of internal derangement and meniscus tear of the left knee. 

He initially reiterated that she could return to light-duty work and subsequently advised that she

could return to full-duty work with no restrictions on March 27, 2017. In the November 21, 2016 

report, Dr. Weinstein noted that appellant related a history of injury that she fell and hit her knee 

and subsequently twisted her knee at work. He opined that the meniscal tear occurred with the 

twisting of the knee.

In a letter received by OWCP on September 14, 2017, appellant, through counsel,

requested reconsideration of the September 21, 2016 decision.

In a subsequent letter received by OWCP on September 15, 2017, counsel requested 

reconsideration of the September 28, 2016 decision.

By decision dated December 7, 2017, OWCP reviewed the merits of appellant’s claim and 

denied modification of its September 21, 2016 decision. It found that the medical evidence 

submitted failed to provide a rationalized medical opinion sufficient to establish that the 

acceptance of her claim should be expanded to include the additional conditions of internal 

derangement and meniscal tear of the left causally related to the April 27, 2017 employment injury.

By decision dated February 23, 2018, OWCP again reviewed the merits of appellant’s

claim and denied modification of its September 28, 2016 decision. It found that she had not 

submitted rationalized medical evidence addressing how the April 27, 2016 employment injury 

caused or contributed to her claimed additional diagnosed left knee conditions.
5

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

When an employee claims that a condition not accepted or approved by OWCP was due to 

an employment injury, he or she bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition is causally 

related to the employment injury.3 To establish causal relationship between the condition as well 

as any attendant disability claimed and the employment injury, an employee must submit 

rationalized medical evidence based on a complete medical and factual background supporting 

causal relationship.4 Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence required to 

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.

5

 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.6 Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period 

of employment, nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by 

employment factors or incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.7

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that the 

acceptance of her claim should be expanded to include additional left knee conditions causally 

related to the accepted April 27, 2016 employment injury.

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a left knee contusion due to a fall while in the 

performance of duty on April 27, 2016. By decision dated June 26, 2016, it denied expansion of 

her claim to include the left knee conditions of internal derangement and meniscal tear of the left 

knee. OWCP, by decision dated December 7, 2017, denied modification of the June 26, 2016

decision.

In support of her request for expansion of her claim to include internal derangement and 

meniscal tear of the left knee causally related to her April 27, 2016 employment injury, appellant 

submitted a series of reports from her attending physician, Dr. Weinstein. In a November 21, 2016

report, Dr. Weinstein noted that appellant related a history of injury that she fell and hit her knee 

and subsequently twisted her knee at work. He opined that her meniscal tear resulted from twisting 

of the knee. However, Dr. Weinstein appears merely to repeat the history of injury as reported by 

appellant without providing his own opinion regarding whether her condition was work related.8 

To the extent that Dr. Weinstein expressed his own opinion, he failed to provide a rationalized 

 

3

Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004).

4 M.W., 57 ECAB 710 (2006); John D. Jackson, 55 ECAB 465 (2004).

5 D.E., 58 ECAB 448 (2007); Mary J. Summers, 55 ECAB 730 (2004).

6

I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (2005).

7 V.W., 58 ECAB 428 (2007); Ernest St. Pierre, 51 ECAB 623 (2000).

8

Id. 
6

opinion based on objective findings regarding the causal relationship between appellant’s left knee 

condition and the accepted employment injury. Medical reports without adequate rationale on 

causal relationship are of diminished probative value and are insufficient to meet an employee’s 

burden of proof.9 For these reasons, the Board finds that Dr. Weinstein’s November 21, 2016 

report is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

In reports covering intermittent dates from May 27, 2016 through March 23, 2017,

Dr. Weinstein related a history that appellant was injured at work on April 27, 2016. He discussed 

examination findings, diagnosed internal derangement and meniscal tear of the left knee, and 

advised that she could return to light-duty work. However, Dr. Weinstein did not specifically 

relate the diagnosed conditions and appellant’s prior disability from work to the April 27, 2016 

employment injury. 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

Dr. Weinstein, on November 8, 2016, diagnosed left knee pain due to the accepted 

April 27, 2016 employment injury. However, it is not possible to establish the cause of a medical 

condition if the physician has not provided a diagnosis, but only notes pain.

11

 The Board has 

consistently held that a diagnosis of pain does not constitute the basis for the payment of 

compensation.12 Without further explanation or rationale regarding causal relationship between 

appellant’s diagnosed condition and the accepted work injury, this report is of limited probative 

value.13 Dr. Weinstein did not offer medical rationale explaining how the diagnosed condition 

was caused by the accepted work injury. For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that his reports 

are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

Appellant also submitted a series of reports from Dr. Quan. In a June 2, 2016 Form CA20 report, Dr. Quan related a history of the April 27, 2016 employment injury and generally 

diagnosed knee and left upper arm injuries. He checked a box marked “yes,” as to whether the 

diagnosed conditions were caused by the employment activity on April 27, 2016. Dr. Quan

indicated that appellant was totally disabled from May 27 to the present and that she could resume 

work on July 14, 2016 following her examination. He failed to provide a firm diagnosis of a 

particular medical condition.14 Moreover, the Board has held that a checkmark on a form report, 

without supporting rationale, is of limited probative value, and is insufficient to establish the 

 

9 C.J., Docket No. 18-0148 (issued August 20, 2018); Franklin D. Haislah, 52 ECAB 457 (2001); Jimmie H. 

Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001) (medical reports not containing rationale on causal relationship are entitled to little 

probative value). 

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

11 See C.L., Docket No. 18-0363 (issued July 19, 2018); A.C., Docket No. 16-1587 (issued December 27, 2016).

12 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).

13 C.L., Docket No. 17-0354 (issued July 10, 2018); Beverly A. Spencer, 55 ECAB 501 (2004).

14 See Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340 (2003) (where the Board found that in the absence of a medical report 

providing a diagnosed condition and a reasoned opinion on causal relationship with the employment incident, 

appellant did not meet her burden of proof).
7

claim.15 Dr. Quan did not explain how and why appellant’s fall on April 27, 2016 would cause 

her diagnosed conditions and resultant disability.16

In reports dated June 2 and August 11, 2016, Dr. Quan noted that appellant was involved 

in a work-related injury on April 27, 2016. He diagnosed left upper arm injury and left knee pain 

and found that she was temporarily totally disabled from work. Dr. Quan opined that the diagnosed 

conditions and disability resulted from the accepted employment injury. He failed to provide a 

firm diagnosis of a particular medical condition regarding appellant’s left upper arm injury.17 

Additionally, Dr. Quan’s diagnosis of left knee pain, as noted above, is a symptom, rather than a 

compensable medical diagnosis.18 Also, while he provided a general opinion on causal 

relationship, he did not sufficiently explain how or why the diagnosed conditions were caused by

the accepted work injury.19 For the foregoing reasons, Dr. Quan’s reports are insufficient to meet

appellant’s burden of proof.

Dr. Quan, in an October 13, 2016 report, noted appellant’s accepted April 27, 2016 

employment-related left knee contusion. He opined that her fall and left knee condition can be the 

inciting injury for a meniscus tear based on her persistent pain, positive McMurray’s test, and MRI 

scan that could not rule out a meniscus tear. Dr. Quan advised that appellant had 33 percent 

temporary mild-to-moderate disability. The Board finds that Dr. Quan’s opinion on causal 

relationship is speculative in nature and is therefore of limited probative value.20

Similarly, Dr. Italiano’s May 7, 2016 diagnostic test report, which found that a 

nondisplaced undersurface tear at the posterior horn/body of the medial meniscus could not be 

excluded, is speculative in nature and of limited probative value.21 He merely indicates that 

appellant’s condition could not be ruled out. Furthermore, Dr. Italiano offered no opinion as to 

the cause of this diagnosis.22 Thus, the Board finds that his report is insufficient to meet appellant’s 

burden of proof.

The Board finds that appellant has failed to submit rationalized probative medical evidence 

sufficient to establish that her currently diagnosed left knee conditions were causally related to or 

 

15 V.B., Docket No. 17-1847 (issued April 4, 2018); L.B., Docket No. 17-1678 (issued February 1, 2018).

16 See supra note 11.

17 See Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340 (2003) (where the Board found that in the absence of a medical report 

providing a diagnosed condition and a reasoned opinion on causal relationship with the employment incident, 

appellant did not meet her burden of proof).

18 See supra note 13.

19 See supra note 11.

20 C.S., Docket No. 16-1784 (issued May 7, 2018).

21 Id.

22 See supra note 14.
8

a consequence of the accepted April 27, 2016 work-related injury. Appellant therefore did not 

meet her burden of proof.

On appeal counsel contends that OWCP failed to accept as compensable pursuant to FECA 

all injuries and conditions sustained by appellant as a result of the April 27, 2016 employment 

injury. As discussed above, however, appellant did not submit rationalized medical evidence on 

the issue of causal relationship sufficient to establish additional employment-related conditions.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

An employee seeking benefits under FECA23 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including that any disability or specific condition for which 

compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury.24 The term disability is 

defined as the incapacity because of an employment injury to earn the wages the employee was 

receiving at the time of the injury.25

Whether a particular injury causes an employee to be disabled from employment and the 

duration of that disability are medical issues which must be proved by a preponderance of the 

reliable, probative, and substantial medical evidence.26 Findings on examination are generally 

needed to support a physician’s opinion that an employee is disabled for work. 

Under FECA the term “disability” means the incapacity, because of an employment injury, 

to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury. Disability is thus not 

synonymous with physical impairment, which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn 

wages. An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to a federal employment 

injury, but who nevertheless has the capacity to earn the wages he or she was receiving at the time 

of injury, has no disability as that term is used in FECA.27 Furthermore, whether a particular injury 

causes an employee to be disabled from employment and the duration of that disability are medical 

issues which must be proved by a preponderance of the reliable, probative and substantial medical 

evidence.28

The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of 

medical evidence addressing the specific dates of disability for which compensation is claimed. 

 

23 See supra note 2. 

24 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

25 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); see e.g., Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999).

26 Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005); William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).

27 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); N.M., Docket No. 18-0939 (issued December 6, 2018).

28 T.O., Docket No. 17-1177 (issued November 2, 2018); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).
9

To do so would essentially allow an employee to self-certify his or her disability and entitlement 

to compensation.29

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

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.30 Rationalized medical evidence is medical evidence 

which includes a physician’s detailed medical opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal 

relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors. 

The opinion of the physician must be 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.31 Neither the fact that a disease or condition 

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

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

relationship.32

Section 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 requires OWCP to issue a decision containing findings of fact 

and a statement of reasons.33

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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

OWCP accepted appellant’s April 27, 2016 traumatic injury claim for the condition of a 

left knee contusion. She received continuation of pay for the period May 5 to June 18, 2016. On 

July 28, 2016 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for LWOP for the period 

June 19 to July 28, 2016.

In a June 2, 2016 note, Dr. Quan opined that appellant was totally disabled commencing 

May 27, 2016, but advised that she could resume work on July 14, 2016 following reexamination. 

In a report and a letter both dated July 8, 2016, Dr. Weinstein released appellant to return to 

sedentary light-duty work with restrictions on July 11, 2016. She thereafter submitted a series of 

reports from Drs. Quan and Weinstein relating to her ability to return to work.

By decision dated September 28, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation 

for disability attributed to the accepted condition of contusion of the left knee. Appellant requested 

reconsideration of the denial of her claim for compensation on September 14, 2017. By decision 

dated February 23, 2018, OWCP denied modification of the September 28, 2016 decision.

 

29 Amelia S. Jefferson, supra note 26.

30 Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

31 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

32 Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997).

33 20 C.F.R. § 10.126.
10

The Board finds that OWCP failed to adequately review the medical evidence of record to 

determine whether appellant had met her burden of proof to establish her claim for compensation 

for total disability for the period June 19 to July 28, 2016 related to the accepted contusion. In its 

February 23, 2018 decision, OWCP correctly noted her accepted condition, but instead of 

providing reconsideration on the issue of a claimed period of total disability it noted that it was 

reviewing a decision on the issue of whether the acceptance of appellant’s claim should be 

expanded to include additional medical conditions. The Board finds that OWCP considered an 

incorrect issue in its reconsideration of the merits when considering modification of the 

September 28, 2016 decision. The issue of claim expansion was the proper subject matter of the 

December 7, 2017 OWCP decision, as discussed in issue one of this decision of the Board. The 

decision dated February 23, 2018 makes no findings on the issue of appellant’s claimed period of 

disability.

The Board therefore finds that OWCP has not provided an adequate decision with findings 

of facts and a statement of reasons as to whether appellant has provided sufficient evidence to 

establish her claim for total disability for the period June 19 to July 28, 2016. OWCP failed to 

discuss or analyze the medical reports she submitted on the issue of entitlement to wage-loss 

compensation. As such, OWCP has failed to adequately determine whether appellant has met her 

burden of proof to establish her claim for a period of total disability.

Section 8124(a) of FECA provides that OWCP shall determine and make a finding of fact 

and make an award for or against payment of compensation.34 Section 10.126 of Title 20 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations provides that a decision shall contain findings of fact and a statement 

of reasons. The Board has held that the reasoning behind OWCP’s evaluation should be clear 

enough for the reader to understand the precise defect of the claim and the kind of evidence which 

would overcome it.35

The case shall therefore be returned to OWCP for a proper decision to include findings of 

fact and a clear and precise statement of reasons as to whether appellant has met her burden of 

proof to establish her claim for total disability for the period June 19 to July 28, 2016. Following 

this and such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to expand the acceptance

of her claim to include additional left knee conditions causally related to her accepted April 27, 

2016 employment injury. The Board further finds that the case is not in posture for a decision on 

the issue of total disability for the period June 19 to July 28, 2016.

 

34 Supra note 2 at 8124(a).

35 Supra note 34; L.M., Docket No. 13-2017 (issued February 21, 2014); D.E., Docket No. 13-1327 (issued 

January 8, 2014); L.C., Docket No. 12-0978 (issued October 26, 2012); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual Part 2 --

Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5 (February 2013) (all decisions should contain findings of fact sufficient to 

identify the benefit being denied and the reason for the disallowance).
11

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 7, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. It is further ordered that the February 23, 2018 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded 

for further action consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: March 26, 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