United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.F., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Buffalo, NY, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0773

Issued: December 8, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 20, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 23, 2019 merit 

decision and a January 14, 2020 nonmerit 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.2

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a left knee 

condition causally related to the accepted June 19, 2017 employment incident; and (2) whether 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the January 14, 2020 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, 

the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record 

that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the 

Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this 

additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 14, 2017 appellant, then a 55-year-old program evaluation and risk analyst, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on June 19, 2017 she sustained a knee injury 

when she stepped onto a curb while walking into the parking lot of her building while in the 

performance of duty. She did not immediately stop work.

A July 5, 2017 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the right knee revealed a fairly 

extensive degenerative tear involving the lateral meniscus, mild degenerative changes in the 

medial meniscus, grade two degenerative change in the medial compartment of the medial femoral 

condyle, grade three degenerative change in the patellofemoral compartment, grade two 

degenerative change in the lateral compartment, associated joint effusion, and a Baker’s cyst.

On July 10, 2017 Dr. John C. Karpie, a Board-certified orthopedist, treated appellant for 

right knee pain that developed after a twisting injury on her way into work on June 19, 2017. 

Examination of the right knee revealed slightly antalgic gait, mild effusion, and tenderness to 

palpation over the medial and lateral joint line and medial patellar facet. Dr. Karpie reviewed the 

MRI scan of the right knee and diagnosed right knee conditions of chondromalacia patellae, other 

meniscal derangements and unspecified lateral meniscus, and other meniscus derangements. On 

July 20, 2017 he performed a right knee arthroscopic partial lateral meniscectomy and right knee 

arthroscopic extensive synovectomy. Dr. Karpie diagnosed right knee lateral meniscal tear and 

right knee synovitis. On July 28, 2017 he evaluated appellant eight days status post right knee

surgery and noted the incisions were clean and dry with mild swelling. Dr. Karpie diagnosed other 

tear of lateral meniscus, right knee, synovial hypertrophy, right lower leg, and chondromalacia 

patellae, right knee. He removed sutures and recommended physical therapy and sedentary work 

beginning July 31, 2017. In a July 28, 2017 work restriction note, Dr. Karpie treated appellant in 

follow up and released her to work without restrictions on July 31, 2017.3

In a development letter dated September 13, 2017, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and 

provided a questionnaire for her completion. In a separate development letter dated September 25, 

2017, OWCP also requested additional information from the employing establishment. It afforded 

both parties 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

In response to OWCP’s development letter, appellant submitted a statement and indicated 

that on the morning of June 19, 2017 she walked approximately seven feet inside the fence 

surrounding the perimeter of the federal building where she worked and stepped onto a curb 

twisting her right knee. She immediately experienced right knee pain and swelling and on June 30, 

2017 she sought treatment from Dr. Alexandra C. D’Angelo, an osteopath. Appellant had not 

experienced a similar injury prior to this time. She indicated that at the time of her injury she was 

on the premises of the employing establishment. 

 

3 Appellant attended physical therapy treatment from August 3 through 30, 2017.
3

In a work restriction note dated July 11, 2017, Dr. Karpie indicated that appellant was 

scheduled for right knee surgery on July 20, 2017 and would be totally disabled from July 20 

to 28, 2017. In reports dated September 1, October 6, and November 17, 2017, he noted that 

appellant was progressing well after surgery and could return to full-duty work. In the October 6 

and November 17, 2017 reports, Dr. Karpie checked a box marked “Yes” indicating that the 

employment incident was the competent medical cause of her injury. In an attending physician’s 

report (Form CA-20) dated October 12, 2017, he advised that appellant twisted her right knee?on 

June 19, 2017 while going into work. Dr. Karpie diagnosed right knee medial meniscus tear and 

status post arthroscopy meniscectomy and checked a box marked “Yes” indicating that appellant’s 

condition had been caused or aggravated by an employment activity. He noted that appellant was 

disabled from July 11 to 30, 2017 and could resume regular duty on July 31, 2017.

By decision dated December 15, 2017, OWCP denied the claim, finding that the June 9, 

2017 employment incident occurred, as alleged, but that the medical evidence submitted was 

insufficient to establish causal relationship between her diagnosed condition and the accepted 

June 19, 2017 employment incident.

In attending physician’s reports (Form CA-20) dated November 21, 2017 and March 27, 

2018, Dr. Karpie indicated that appellant twisted her right knee? on June 19, 2017, while going to 

work. He diagnosed right knee lateral meniscus tear and synovitis of the right knee and checked 

a box marked “Yes” indicating that appellant’s condition had been caused or aggravated by an 

employment activity. Dr. Karpie noted that appellant had been working full duty since 

September 1, 2017. In reports dated March 16 and July 27, 2018, he noted that appellant was 

status post right knee arthroscopic partial lateral meniscectomy and synovectomy and reported 90 

percent improvement overall. Dr. Karpie noted that appellant had retired.

On January 10, 2018 appellant requested a telephonic hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. The hearing was held on June 14, 2018.

By decision dated September 4, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

December 15, 2017 decision.

In an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated August 8, 2018, Dr. Karpie 

diagnosed right knee lateral meniscus tear and synovitis of the right knee and checked a box 

marked “Yes,” indicating that appellant’s condition had been caused or aggravated by an 

employment activity.

On October 16, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration. In support of her request, she 

submitted a September 20, 2018 note from Dr. Karpie, who indicated that appellant sustained a 

twisting injury to her right knee on June 19, 2017 and experienced medial and anterior knee pain, 

which has continued. He indicated that appellant did not have pain or dysfunction prior to her 

twisting injury. Dr. Karpie concluded that the twisting injury on June 19, 2017 caused her 

meniscal tears resulting in pain, dysfunction, and surgery.

By decision dated January 8, 2019, OWCP denied modification of the September 4, 2018

decision.
4

On March 8, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration. She submitted a June 30, 2017 

report from Dr. D’Angelo, who treated her for right knee pain which began on June 19, 2017. 

Appellant reported walking through a parking lot and stepping on a curb and twisting her right 

knee. Examination of the right knee revealed no instability, intact strength, normal muscle tone, 

full range of motion, and negative anterior drawer and posterior drawer test. Dr. D’Angelo 

diagnosed pain in the right knee.

By decision dated April 30, 2019, OWCP denied modification of the January 8, 2019

decision.

On June 25, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration. She submitted documents which 

provided definitions of knee sprains, strains, and tears.

By decision dated September 23, 2019, OWCP denied modification of the April 30, 2019

decision.

On January 10, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration. In support thereof, she submitted 

a statement dated January 6, 2020 in which she reiterated that she had injured her right knee on 

June 19, 2017 while walking into work. Appellant indicated that she was also carrying a computer 

bag weighing approximately 22 pounds that contained her computer, cords, and file folders. She 

attached a photograph of the computer bag. Appellant noted no prior injuries to her knee. She 

also resubmitted a report from Dr. Karpie dated September 20, 2018, previously of record.

By decision dated January 14, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

of the merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including 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,5that 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.6 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.7

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There 

 

4

Id.

5 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

6 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020); 

James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

7 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); 

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

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must submit 

sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the 

time, place, and in the manner alleged. The second component is whether the employment incident 

caused a personal injury and can be established only by medical evidence.8

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific 

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence.9 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 specific employment factors 

identified by the employee.10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a right knee 

condition causally related to the accepted June 19, 2017 employment incident.

Dr. Karpie, in a note dated September 20, 2018, indicated that on June 19, 2017 appellant 

sustained a twisting injury to her right knee and experienced medial and anterior knee pain. He 

noted that appellant did not have pain or dysfunction prior to her twisting injury. Dr. Karpie 

concluded that the twisting injury on June 19, 2017 caused her meniscal tears resulting in pain and 

dysfunction and surgery. Although Dr. Karpie supported causal relationship, he did not provide 

medical rationale supporting his conclusory opinion. The Board has held that a medical opinion 

is of limited value if it is conclusory in nature.11 A medical opinion must explain how the 

implicated employment incident physiologically caused, contributed to, or aggravated the specific 

diagnosed conditions.12 Dr. Karpie did not explain how appellant’s act of twisting had resulted in 

the conditions he had diagnosed and considered work related. Without this explanation, his report

is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof to establish her claim.13 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted additional medical records authored by

Dr. Karpie, including a July 10, 2017 report in which he diagnosed right knee conditions, a July 20, 

2017 surgical report, a July 28, 2017 report in which he noted the prior surgery and diagnosed right 

knee conditions, and work restriction notes dated from July 28 to November 17, 2017 in which he

reported treating appellant. However, in none of these reports did Dr. Karpie provide an opinion 

 

8 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

9 S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 2019); Robert G. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

10 T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 2020); 

Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

11 C.M., Docket No. 19-0360 (issued February 25, 2020); B.H., Docket No. 18-1219 (issued January 25, 2019).

12 C.M., id.; K.G., Docket No. 18-1598 (issued January 7, 2020).

13 Id.
6

on the issue of causal relationship. 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.14 These reports, therefore, are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

In reports dated October 6, and 12, November 17 and 21, 2017, and August 8, 2018,

Dr. Karpie checked a box marked “Yes” indicating that appellant’s condition had been caused or 

aggravated by an employment activity. However, the Board has held that an opinion on causal 

relationship that consists only of an affirmative check mark on a form report, without more by way 

of medical rationale, is of limited probative value.

15

 As such, these reports are insufficient to 

establish appellant’s claim. 

Appellant also submitted reports signed by a physical therapist. Certain healthcare 

providers such as physical therapists,

16 however, are not considered physicians as defined under 

FECA.17 Consequently, these reports will not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to 

FECA benefits.18 

Appellant further submitted a right knee MRI scan report. The Board has held, however, 

that diagnostic studies, standing alone, lack probative value on the issue of causal relationship as 

they do not address whether the employment incident caused the diagnosed conditions.19 The MRI 

scan is thus insufficient to establish the claim.

Appellant also submitted excerpts from a publication which provided definitions of knee 

sprains, strains, and tears. The Board has long held that medical texts and excerpts from 

publications lack probative value in establishing the causal relationship between a claimed 

condition and an employment incident as such materials are of general application and are not 

determinative of whether the specific condition claimed is related to the particular employment 

factors alleged by the employee.20 This material has probative value only to the extent that it is 

interpreted and cited by a physician rendering an opinion on the causal relationship between a 

 

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

15 See C.S., Docket No. 18-1633 (issued December 30, 2019); D.S., Docket No. 17-1566 (issued 

December 31, 2018).

16 V.W., Docket No. 16-1444 (issued March 14, 2017) (where the Board found that physical therapy reports do not 

constitute competent medical evidence because a physical therapist is not a “physician” as defined under FECA).

17 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t).

18 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that physician “includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, 

optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law.” 

5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). See also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 

2.805.3(a)(1) (January 2013); David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006) (lay individuals such as physician 

assistants, nurses, and physical therapists are not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA); R.L., Docket 

No. 19-0440 (issued July 8, 2019) (physical therapists are not considered physicians as defined under FECA).

19 K.G., Docket No. 18-1598 (issued January 7, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0216 (issued December 13, 2019).

20 L.C., Docket No. 17-1811 (issued March 23, 2018); N.B., Docket No. 14-1702 (issued December 29, 2014); S.A.,

Docket No. 13-1551 (issued December 17, 2013); Gloria J. McPherson, 51 ECAB 441 (2000); William C. Bush, 40 

ECAB 1064, 1075 (1989).
7

condition and specified employment injury.21 As these publications were not interpreted and cited 

by appellant’s physicians in offering a rationalized medical opinion as to how appellant’s specific 

employment factors caused her diagnosed conditions, these publications are insufficient to 

establish causal relationship. 

On appeal appellant asserts that she submitted sufficient medical evidence in support of 

her claim for compensation. However, as explained above, there was no rationalized medical 

evidence by a physician of record at the time OWCP issued its September 23, 2019 decision. As 

such, the Board finds that appellant has not met her 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.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Section 8128(a) of FECA vests OWCP with discretionary authority to determine whether 

to review an award for or against compensation. The Secretary of Labor may review an award for 

or against compensation at any time on his own motion or on application.22

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review pursuant to FECA, the claimant must 

provide evidence or an argument which: (1) shows that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted 

a specific point of law; (2) advances a relevant legal argument not previously considered by 

OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by 

OWCP.23

A request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of 

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.24 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

and reviews the case on its merits.25 If the request is timely, but fails to meet at least one of the 

 

21 L.C., id.; C.S., Docket No. 12-1169 (issued November 5, 2012); Harlan L. Soeten, 38 ECAB 566, 567 (1987).

22 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see M.S., Docket No. 19-1001 (issued December 9, 2019); L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued 

February 11, 2019); see also V.P., Docket No. 17-1287 (issued October 10, 2017); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).

23 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see also E.W., Docket No. 19-1393 (issued January 29, 2020); L.D., id.; B.W., Docket 

No. 18-1259 (issued January 25, 2019).

24 Id. at § 10.607(a). The one-year period begins on the next day after the date of the original contested decision. 

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 (February 2016). 

Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date of the request for reconsideration as indicated by the received 

date in the Integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS). Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4b.

25 Id. at § 10.608(a); see also Y.H., Docket No. 18-1618 (issued January 21, 2020); R.W., Docket No. 18-1324 

(issued January 21, 2020); M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).
8

requirements for reconsideration, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for review on the merits.

26

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the 

merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

Appellant has not alleged or demonstrated that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted 

a specific point of law. Moreover, she has not advanced a relevant legal argument not previously 

considered. Consequently, appellant is not entitled to a review of the merits of her claim based on 

the first and second above-noted requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).27

Further, appellant has not provided relevant and pertinent new evidence in support of her 

request for reconsideration. The underlying issue is whether a diagnosed condition was causally 

related to the accepted June 9, 2017 employment incident. This is a medical issue which must be 

determined by rationalized medical evidence.28 On reconsideration appellant submitted a picture 

of a computer bag that she was carrying on June 19, 2017. However, as this is not medical 

evidence it is irrelevant to the underlying issue on reconsideration, whether appellant had met her 

burden of proof to establish that her right knee condition was causally related to the accepted work 

incident.29 Therefore, this photograph is insufficient to warrant a merit review. Appellant also 

resubmitted a copy of Dr. Karpie’s September 20, 2018 report. The Board has held that the 

submission of evidence or argument which repeats or duplicates evidence or argument already in 

the case record does not constitute a basis for reopening a case and thus, this report is also 

insufficient to warrant a merit review.30 

As appellant failed to provide relevant and pertinent new evidence related to the underlying 

issue of causal relationship, she was not entitled to a merit review based on the third requirement 

under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

 

26 Id. at § 10.608(b); D.C., Docket No. 19-0873 (issued January 27, 2020); M.S., Docket No. 19-0291 (issued 

June 21, 2019).

27 M.O., Docket No. 19-1677 (issued February 25, 2020); C.B., Docket No. 18-1108 (issued January 22, 2019).

28 See J.B., Docket No. 18-1531 (issued April 11, 2019); E.D., Docket No. 18-0138 (issued May 14, 2018); 

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

29 B.O., Docket No. 20-0156 (issued May 13, 2020); E.T., Docket No. 14-1087 (issued September 5, 2014).

30 D.M., Docket No. 18-1003 (issued July 16, 2020); L.C., Docket No. 19-0503 (issued February 7, 2020); A.A., 

Docket No. 18-0031 (issued April 5, 2018).
9

The Board accordingly finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant was not 

entitled to further review of the merits of her claim pursuant to any of the three requirements under 

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.31

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a right knee 

condition causally related to the June 19, 2017 employment incident. The Board further finds that 

OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 14, 2020 and September 23, 2019 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: December 8, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

31 D.M., id.; C.C., Docket No. 18-0316 (issued March 14, 2019); M.E., 58 ECAB 694 (2007); Susan A. Filkins, 57 

ECAB 630 (2006) (when a request for reconsideration does not meet at least one of the three requirements enumerated 

under section 10.606(b), OWCP will deny the application for reconsideration without reopening the case for a review 

on the merits).