United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.F., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CROWN POINT POST 

OFFICE, Crown Point, IN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0990

Issued: January 13, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 9, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a March 6, 2020

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.

 

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 a medical condition

causally related to the accepted May 16, 2019 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 20, 2019 appellant, then a 56-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on May 16, 2019 he injured his left shoulder when reaching for mail 

with his left hand while in the performance of duty. He indicated that he felt a sharp pain in the 

left shoulder that radiated down into his left arm and hand. Appellant noted that he was diagnosed 

with a pinched nerve. He did not stop work. 

In a May 16, 2019 statement, appellant explained that he was delivering mail that day when 

he grabbed mail from a tray table with his left hand. He asserted that he felt something pull in his 

shoulder, but was able to complete his route. Appellant noted that he did not want to seek medical 

treatment at that time. 

A May 19, 2019 after visit summary indicated that appellant was seen that day by a nurse 

practitioner who diagnosed a pinched nerve. 

In a July 11, 2019 medical report, Dr. Mukund Komanduri, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted that appellant presented with left shoulder pain after injuring it at work on 

May 16, 2019. He further noted that appellant suffered from two months of chronic motor wasting 

of the left arm and hand with severe wrist drop and inability to extend his fingers. Dr. Komanduri 

observed that he also had intermittent numbness in his hand. He indicated that appellant previously 

underwent a C6-7 cervical fusion. Dr. Komanduri noted appellant’s belief that work activity, such 

as grabbing the mail, caused his injury. He diagnosed left shoulder pain, cervicalgia, cervical 

radiculopathy, and instability of joint of left wrist. Dr. Komanduri recommended that appellant 

undergo a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of his cervical spine and upper extremity 

electromyogram (EMG) study. He also prescribed physical therapy. Appellant underwent 

physical therapy treatment that day.

3

A July 12, 2019 MRI scan of the cervical spine demonstrated minimal disc bulges with 

annular tears at C2-3 and C3-4 and disc protrusion at C4-5, C5-6, and C7-T1. It also revealed disc

degeneration, subarticular recess, and foraminal narrowing at C4-5.

In a July 29, 2019 development letter, OWCP advised appellant that when his claim was 

received it appeared to be a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time from work. The 

claim was administratively approved to allow payment of a limited amount of medical expenses, 

but the merits of the claim had not been formally adjudicated. OWCP advised that, because 

appellant had filed a claim for wage-loss compensation, his claim would now be formally 

adjudicated. It requested that he submit factual and medical information including a 

comprehensive report from his physician regarding how a specific work incident contributed to 

 

3 On July 20, 2019 appellant filed a claim for wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) for the period July 16 

through 19, 2019. 
3

his claimed injury. OWCP provided appellant with a questionnaire for his completion and afforded 

him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

OWCP subsequently received additional medical evidence, including treatment notes 

indicating that appellant had undergone additional physical therapy treatment on August 1

and 23, 2019.

4

In an August 2, 2019 medical report, Dr. Komanduri noted that appellant returned for a 

follow up on his acute cervical radiculopathy. He again noted the date of injury as May 16, 2019. 

Dr. Komanduri reviewed appellant’s MRI scan and diagnosed cervical radiculopathy. He 

observed that there was a significant risk of complete loss of function in appellant’s left upper 

extremity. Dr. Komanduri concluded that this was a surgical emergency and needed to be 

addressed as soon as possible. In a narrative report of even date, he reiterated his findings and 

diagnosis. In a work status report of even date, Dr. Komanduri indicated that appellant was off 

work.5

In an August 16, 2019 medical report, Dr. Komanduri observed that appellant had muscle 

atrophy, weakness, and loss of function in the left arm. He diagnosed cervical disc herniation. 

Dr. Komanduri reiterated that appellant’s injury occurred while at work on May 16, 2019, noting 

that appellant was repetitively lifting and delivering mail that day. He noted that when appellant 

reached out in an awkward position to get mail, he felt an audible pop in his neck, experiencing a 

sharp pain on the left side of the neck. Dr. Komanduri explained that the active leaning to the side 

and reaching overhead put appellant’s brachial plexus on traction and irritated his neck. He noted 

that appellant was also aggressively rotating to the left to allow him to see the mailboxes. 

Dr. Komanduri further explained that such repetitive rotating, lifting, and twisting of appellant’s 

neck on May 16, 2019 put his cervical disc at risk. He found that there was clear evidence of an 

acute injury with severe muscle atrophy and weakness to the point that appellant no longer could 

utilize his left arm. Dr. Komanduri again indicated that appellant previously underwent a cervical 

fusion in 2003. He opined that, while appellant probably had chronic degenerative disease given 

his age, appellant “clearly” sustained an acute injury from the accepted May 16, 2019 employment 

incident, which was “clearly” a reasonable cause for his cervical disc herniation. Dr. Komanduri 

noted that appellant needed medical treatment right away. He concluded that there was a causal 

connection consistent with lifting, twisting, and repetitive use of the neck and shoulder and that he 

believed that appellant was telling the truth. In a narrative report of even date, Dr. Komanduri 

reiterated his findings and conclusions.6

By decision dated September 4, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that he had not established causal relationship between his diagnosed conditions and the 

accepted May 16, 2019 employment incident.

 

4 On August 2, 2019 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for the period July 20 through August 2, 2019.

5 On August 16, 2019 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for the period August 3 through 16, 2019. 

6 On August 30, 2019 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for the period August 17 through 30, 2019.
4

OWCP subsequently received additional medical evidence. In an August 16, 2019 work 

status report, Dr. Komanduri indicated that appellant remained off work. On September 18, 2019 

appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review. During the hearing, held on January 15, 2020, appellant 

explained that he previously had a cervical fusion in 2003, but that his preexisting neck condition 

was not work related and had fully resolved. The hearing representative held the record open for 

30 days for the submission of additional evidence. No further evidence was received. 

By decision dated March 6, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

September 4, 2019 decision, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal 

relationship between appellant’s diagnosed conditions and the accepted May 16, 2019 employment 

incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA7 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,8that 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.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 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 

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.11 

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

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence.12 The opinion of 

 

7

Id.

8 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). 

9 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).

10 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).

11 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).

12 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).
5

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.13

ANALYSIS

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

In reports dated August 16, 2019, Dr. Komanduri provided a detailed physiological 

explanation of how the accepted May 16, 2019 employment incident resulted in appellant’s 

diagnosed cervical disc herniation. He stated that appellant was aggressively rotating to the left 

on May 16, 2019 to see the mailboxes and repetitively reaching out in an awkward position to lift 

mail. Dr. Komanduri explained that this activity of leaning to the side and reaching overhead put 

his brachial plexus on traction, irritating the neck. He further explained that such combination of

repetitive rotating, lifting, and twisting of appellant’s neck put tension on his brachial plexus,

causing muscle atrophy and weakness to the point that he no longer could utilize his left arm.

Dr. Komanduri concluded that appellant’s cervical disc herniation was, therefore, causally related 

to the accepted May 16, 2019 employment incident. 

The Board finds that, although Dr. Komanduri’s reports are insufficient to discharge 

appellant’s burden of proof that his diagnosed conditions were caused or aggravated by the 

accepted May 16, 2019 employment incident, his reports constitute substantial, uncontroverted 

evidence in support of the claim, and provide sufficient rationale to require further development 

of the case record by OWCP.14 Dr. Komanduri provided a detailed history of injury, referenced 

objective medical reports demonstrating injury, expressed his opinion on causal relationship within 

a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and provided a pathophysiologic explanation as to the 

mechanism by which repetitive rotating, lifting, and twisting while grabbing mail on May 16, 2019 

resulted in appellant’s diagnosed cervical disc herniation. 

It is well established that proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature, nor is 

OWCP a disinterested arbiter. While the claimant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement 

to compensation, OWCP shares the responsibility in the development of the evidence to see that 

justice is done.15

The case shall therefore be remanded for OWCP to refer appellant, the case record, and a 

statement of accepted facts to a specialist in the appropriate field of medicine for an evaluation 

and a rationalized medical opinion on whether the accepted May 16, 2019 employment incident 

caused, contributed to, or aggravated his diagnosed conditions. If the physician opines that the 

diagnosed condition is not causally related to the employment incident, he or she must explain 

 

13 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).

14 Y.D., Docket No. 19-1200 (issued April 6, 2020).

15 K.P., Docket No. 18-0041 (issued May 24, 2019).
6

with rationale how or why their opinion differs from that of Dr. Komanduri. Following this and 

other such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it 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 March 6, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this decision of the Board.

Issued: January 13, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board