United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Clearwater, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0346

Issued: October 25, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 7, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 26, 2017 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 has met her burden of proof to establish right elbow 

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 28, 2017 appellant, then a 55-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed right elbow tendinitis due to factors of her federal 

employment. She attributed her condition to “overuse/repetitive” duties, which included opening 

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

and closing the door on her work vehicle more than 100 times daily, setting and releasing the 

vehicle emergency brake, putting on and removing her seat belt, turning the ignition on and off 

100 times per day, and opening/closing more than 600 mailboxes daily. Appellant indicated that 

she first became aware of the condition on May 10, 2016. She first realized that her condition was 

caused or aggravated by factors of her federal employment on September 3, 2016. The employing 

establishment indicated that appellant stopped work on October 6, 2016.

OWCP received an amended report dated November 1, 2016 from Dr. Brian Maiocco, an 

orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed right elbow tendinitis. Dr. Maiocco indicated that the 

condition was due to repetitive overuse and checked a box marked “no” with regard to whether 

the injury or illness arose out of appellant’s employment. He further indicated that the symptoms 

appeared in approximately April 2016. Dr. Maiocco noted that appellant was totally disabled from 

October 6 through November 2, 2016 and advised that from November 2 to 11, 2016, she was 

partially disabled.

In development letters dated May 16, 2017, OWCP informed appellant and the employing 

establishment of the type of evidence needed to support her claim and requested that she submit 

such evidence within 30 days. It requested that she complete a questionnaire describing all 

activities outside her federal employment. 

In a letter dated May 26, 2017, R.K., an employing establishment human resource 

management specialist, provided comments from a knowledgeable supervisor, a position 

description, and the physical requirements of appellant’s position. N.R., a supervisor of customer 

service, indicated that she could not confirm the accuracy of appellant’s claim or challenge her 

claim. She explained that she had only been appellant’s supervisor since mid-February 2017, and 

the claim went back to May 10 2016. N.R. advised that the tasks of appellant’s position were no 

different than that of any carrier performing their daily duties of casing mail, and delivering mail 

and packages. She explained that they all drove their vehicles, opened and shut the door, buckled 

and unbuckled the seat belt, set the hand brakes, reached out of the vehicle to put mail into outside 

curb boxes, and bent and stooped to pick up packages from a lower elevation to a higher elevation, 

intermittently from one to six hours a day. N.R. explained that safety precautions were in place. 

Appellant submitted an undated and unsigned duty status report (Form CA-17) which noted 

that she had worked 20 hours per week and included a restriction for pushing and pulling for no 

more than 4 hours per day. 

In a letter dated June 13, 2017, appellant explained that she was providing a brief 

description of her right arm tendinitis and completed OWCP’s questionnaire. She explained that 

in May 2016, she was experiencing right arm/elbow pain and she sought medical attention/care 

from Dr. Maiocco. Appellant further explained that she sought treatment for approximately five 

months, including referring her for physical therapy and a magnetic resonance imaging scan, which 

revealed a small tear. She described her workday and advised that it was comprised of an 8-hour 

day, 40 hours a week and she also repeated the description of her duties as a letter carrier. 

Appellant noted that about three years prior, her route was adjusted over eight hours. She

explained that she was a disabled veteran, on an eight-hour restriction. However, despite being 

informed that she would receive help every day, appellant was fighting with management to 

accommodate her needs. She noted that she rarely received two 10-minute breaks, or a half-hour 
3

lunch. Appellant provided a chart that detailed the time she performed each duty, which was in 

excess of eight hours per day.

Appellant provided a June 13, 2017 response to OWCP’s questionnaire. She indicated that 

her outside activities included exercise and walking when physically able. Appellant explained 

that she exercised one to two times per week for approximately 45 minutes (when she was able),

but that she was not able to do so in the past four to five months. She noted that she worked on 

the computer, performing various functions, for approximately one to one and a half hours per day. 

Appellant also indicated that she watched TV for one to one and a half hours per day. 

By decision dated June 26, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the medical 

evidence did not demonstrate that the claimed medical condition was related to established workrelated events.

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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation 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, a claimant must submit: (1) a factual statement identifying employment factors 

alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of a disease or condition; 

(2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition for which 

compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is 

causally related to the identified employment factors.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 factor(s) must be based on a 

 

2

Id.

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); 

DeloresC.Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

6

S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

7 T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).
4

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 factor(s).9

ANALYSIS

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

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

In support of her claim, appellant submitted the amended report dated November 1, 2016

from Dr. Maiocco, who diagnosed right elbow tendinitis and indicated that it was due to repetitive 

overuse. Dr. Maiocco did not provide a supportive opinion that the condition was work related. 

Rather, he checked a box marked “no” with regard to whether the injury or illness arose out of 

appellant’s employment. Thus, the Board finds that this report is insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim.

The undated and unsigned duty status report (Form CA-17) is also insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim. It is of no probative value as it is devoid of an opinion as to whether appellant’s 

claimed condition is causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment,10 and there 

is no indication that a physician authored the report.11 As such, the Board finds that this report is 

also insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

As there is no medical evidence explaining how appellant’s employment duties caused or 

aggravated a medical condition involving her right elbow, appellant has not met her burden of 

proof to establish a right elbow condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal 

employment.

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 her burden of proof to establish right elbow 

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

 

8 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); Victor J. Woodhams,supra note 6.

9

Id.

10 Medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition or disability is 

of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); 

D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

11 As the Board has held, a report that is unsigned or bears an illegible signature lacks proper identification and 

cannot be considered probative medical evidence. See L.M., Docket No. 18-0473 (issued October 22, 2018); Merton J. 

Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 26, 2017 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 25, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board