United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL 

CORRECTION CENTER, Pollock, LA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0185

Issued: September 7, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Sara Kincaid, 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 November 2, 2017 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an August 24, 

2017 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 the claim.

 

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 bilateral shoulder

injury causally related to the accepted April 30, 2010 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 29, 2010 appellant, then a 47-year-old correctional institution administrator, filed 

a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 30, 2010 he sustained injury to his 

ribs when a prisoner who was fighting another inmate fell on top of him as he tried to separate the 

combatants. He listed the injury as bruise on left side of upper rib cage area. Appellant stopped 

work on May 3, 2010, but returned to work full-time regular duty on May 4, 2010. He retired in 

September 2012. Appellant submitted no evidence with his claim.

A Form CA-110 memorandum from OWCP’s telephone records indicates that on 

January 23, 2014 appellant called and informed OWCP that he no longer worked for the employing 

establishment and that he recently had surgery on his shoulder. OWCP advised appellant to submit 

a claim for a recurrence (Form CA-2a) along with medical treatment records discussing his 

treatment since his original date of injury. It was noted that his April 30, 2010 claim had been

administratively accepted.

Subsequently, on February 5, 2014, appellant filed a notice of recurrence of disability 

(Form CA-2a) of the claimed April 30, 2010 employment injury. He contended that the recurrence

occurred on October 1, 2010 and that he stopped work on December 20, 2013. Appellant indicated 

that he returned to work on April 18, 2014. He stated that when taking a shower and raising his 

arm, it started to hurt. Appellant indicated that he had on and off difficulty with normal activities. 

He stated that he had no other issues before the assault in the prison.3

In a note from appellant received by OWCP on October 1, 2014, appellant related that he 

was currently recovering from right shoulder rotator cuff surgery. He claimed that he sustained 

an injury on April 3, 2010 during an inmate-on-inmate assault in which he had to place one of the 

inmates on the ground. Appellant related that in doing so, he fell on his right side with both of his 

arms around the inmate’s upper torso. He noted that he could feel both of his shoulders shift. 

Appellant explained that he restrained the inmate and later reported to safety and went to the 

emergency room, where a physician diagnosed bursitis and gave him something for pain and 

inflammation. He alleged that he saw Dr. Joan Brunson, a Board-certified family practitioner,

about a month later, and she referred him to Dr. Jeffrey L. Garrison, an orthopedic surgeon, who 

found no findings of a cuff tear, mild-to-moderate pattern of subacromial bursitis, mild-tomoderate acromioclavicular degenerative disease; and mass effect upon the cuff on the basis of 

acromial configuration.

 

3

In response to OWCP’s instructions, appellant filed another Form CA-2a on April 15, 2014. He indicated that 

following the original injury he returned to unrestricted work activities. However normal activities became 

problematic and appellant’s arm hurt when raised.
3

On October 1, 2014 appellant submitted multiple medical documents detailing his medical 

treatment starting October 1, 2001.

Medical reports covering dates prior to the alleged April 3, 2010 employment incident 

indicated that appellant was treated from October 16, 2001 to October 29, 2012 by Dr. Garrison

for left rotator cuff tendinitis and impingement syndrome. Appellant’s left shoulder was treated 

successfully with injections and physical therapy. Dr. Garrison noted that appellant sustained an 

injury to his left shoulder many years ago when he ran into someone during a football game. 

Appellant submitted progress notes and other medical documents for the period after the 

alleged April 30, 2010 employment incident. In an April 25, 2011 report, Dr. Brunson noted that 

appellant presented with shoulder pain after working out.

In a May 24, 2011 report, Dr. Garrison described the history of the present illness. He 

noted that appellant was complaining of pain in his right shoulder that was present for 

approximately five to five and one-half months after an injury that occurred at work when he was 

taking down a prisoner, wrapped his arms around him, and ended up landing on his right shoulder. 

Dr. Garrison diagnosed right shoulder pain with bursal irritation and impingement and postinjury 

rotator cuff tendinitis. 

In an October 29, 2012 radiology consultation report, Dr. Michael Dale Allen, a 

radiologist, listed his impressions of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of appellant’s left 

shoulder as no findings of cuff tear, mild-to-moderate pattern of subacromial degenerative disease, 

mild-to-moderate acromioclavicular degenerative disease, and mass effect upon the cuff.

An MRI scan of the right shoulder taken on January 16, 2013 was interpreted by

Dr. Garrison as showing a complete tear of the rotator cuff without retraction. 

In a January 24, 2013 progress note, Mark A. Carbo, a physician assistant, noted that 

appellant continued to have some discomfort in his right shoulder. He also noted that the MRI 

scan was consistent with a small focal full-thickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon along the 

insertion of the tuberosity. 

In a January 25, 2013 report, Dr. Garrison diagnosed right shoulder rotator cuff tear, full 

thickness. 

In a December 13, 2013 progress note, Mr. Carbo noted that appellant was two weeks post 

rotator cuff repair of the right shoulder with a superior labral tear from anterior to posterior (SLAP)

repair. He noted that appellant had pain in his shoulder joint.

In a March 23, 2015 operative report received by OWCP on April 18, 2016, Dr. Garrison 

noted that he performed a diagnostic arthroscopic and debridement of degenerative superior labral 

tear, arthroscopic subacromial decompression, arthroscopic distal clavicle excision, and 

arthroscopic rotator cuff repair of appellant’s left shoulder. 

By development letter dated March 26, 2015, OWCP informed appellant that his initial 

claim had not been fully developed as it was treated as a minor injury with no time lost from work, 

and a payment for a limited amount of medical expenses was approved. It explained that a 
4

determination must now be made as to whether he experienced an employment-related injury on 

April 30, 2010. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the requested information. 

In a response dated April 23, 2015, appellant described his medical treatment since the 

alleged April 30, 2010 employment incident. 

In an April 23, 2015 report, Dr. Garrison noted that appellant originally presented to his 

office on May 24, 2011 with complaints of right shoulder pain, which started following an incident 

at work when he was taking down a prisoner. He noted that appellant originally went to an

emergency department where an x-ray was found to be negative. Appellant was then seen by his 

personal physician and referred to his office. He noted that based on his findings on examination, 

he suspected a possible rotator cuff injury or SLAP-type injury. Appellant returned to

Dr. Garrison’s office on August 9, 2011 with complaints of bilateral shoulder pain. He noted that 

he had no injuries since the original incident at prison. Dr. Garrison continued to treat appellant 

with Cortisone injections administered in bilateral shoulders. Appellant continued to have pain 

despite conservative treatment, so an MRI scan was ordered, and the result showed a complete tear 

of the rotator cuff of the right shoulder. Surgery was recommended on appellant’s return visit on 

January 24, 2013. Appellant underwent surgery on the right shoulder for rotator cuff repair on 

December 20, 2013, and was released to regular duty on April 15, 2014. However, he returned on 

December 23, 2014 complaining of left shoulder pain. On February 17, 2015 an MRI scan was 

ordered, which showed a full-thickness tear. Appellant had surgery for rotator cuff repair on 

March 23, 2015. In an April 23, 2015 report, Dr. Garrison related that appellant had no issues with 

shoulder pain prior to the incident at work in 2010 when he had to take down a prisoner during an 

altercation. He noted that appellant was treated at his office shortly after that incident. 

Dr. Garrison opined that the incident that occurred at appellant’s place of employment in 2010 

could definitely have caused appellant’s injuries.

By decision dated September 21, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It determined 

that appellant had not met the requirements for establishing fact of injury as he had not established 

that an incident occurred at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.

On April 18, 2016 appellant submitted further documentation to OWCP. 

In a May 24, 2011 report, Dr. Garrison noted his impressions as right shoulder pain with 

bursal intrusion and impingement and rotator cuff tendinosis status post injury. He gave appellant 

an injection. In a December 12, 2013 report, received by OWCP on April 18, 2016, Dr. Garrison 

noted that appellant continued to have a fairly disabling right shoulder pain and some persistent 

complaints of aching-type pain in the left shoulder. He opined that appellant had impingement 

and acromioclavicular joint arthritis in the left shoulder, but no rotator cuff tear on that side, and a 

complete rupture of the rotator cuff. In a December 23, 2013 operative report, Dr. Garrison noted 

that he performed a diagnostic arthroscopy and arthroscopic superior labral repair from anterior to 

posterior and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair along with decompression and distal clavicle 

excision. On January 29, 2016 he performed a diagnostic arthroscopy and revision rotator cuff 

repair, left shoulder. 

On September 9, 2016 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration.
5

In an August 23, 2016 report, Dr. John Ellis, a Board-certified family practitioner,

described appellant’s history of injury. He noted that on April 30, 2010 while working for the 

employing establishment, he injured both shoulders when he grabbed one inmate involved in a 

fight, and that as he was taking him down, both arms hit the ground with the inmate. Dr. Ellis 

related that appellant had immediate pain in both shoulders, by that evening he had pain in his 

neck and both shoulder joints, and the next day the pain was worse. He reviewed appellant’s 

medical history. Dr. Ellis noted that appellant still had pain in both shoulder joints, and tightness 

between his shoulders and the base of his neck. He also noted headaches in the back of his neck, 

tingling in his arms, and weakness in his shoulders. Dr. Ellis reviewed appellant’s medical history

and conducted a physical examination. He diagnosed right shoulder rotator cuff tear right shoulder 

superior labral tear, right shoulder acromioclavicular joint arthritis, right shoulder impingement 

syndrome, right brachial plexus impingement, left shoulder rotator cuff tear, left shoulder 

impingement syndrome, left shoulder acromioclavicular joint arthritis, left shoulder superior labral 

tear from anterior to posterior, muscle tendon unit strain of the cervical spine, and left brachial 

plexus impingement. Dr. Ellis opined that, based upon his examination of appellant, review of the 

medical and other records, and this training, education, and experience, and upon reasonable 

medical certainty, that it was more probable than not that the injuries, impairments, and disabilities 

set forth in his diagnosis, findings and impairments arose out of the course of appellant’s 

employment and that employment factors and work duties contributed to, aggravated, and/or 

caused this employee’s injuries, disability, and impairment. He noted that, while appellant was 

holding the inmate with both arms and struggling and as he fell forward with the inmate under 

him, he jarred both arms causing the elbows to jam up into his shoulders causing an acute 

separation of the labrum in both shoulders as well as tearing the tendons in the shoulders and 

rotator cuff. With the fall, he also strained his neck, which is not so severe. With the continued 

tightness of the shoulder girdle muscles, the strain of his neck has not healed. He restrains it easily 

with just the activities of daily living due to the tightness of the shoulder girdle muscles and 

ligaments. The tightness of the shoulder girdle muscles and ligaments is causing mild brachial 

plexus impingement, but not thoracic outlet syndrome. Dr. Ellis continued that this claim was 

easy to understand in that appellant fell and jerked the tendons in his shoulder and the labrum 

which is the cartilage that attaches to the bone of the shoulder joints. He noted that the tight 

muscles in the shoulder girdle area were causing brachial plexus impingement. Dr. Ellis indicated 

that at this time appellant did not need any work restrictions as he had learned to be careful with 

his shoulders. He opined that appellant was temporarily totally disabled as a result of this injury 

due to the required surgery. 

By decision dated October 26, 2016, OWCP found that appellant had established fact of 

injury, but denied the claim as he had not established that the accepted employment incident caused 

the diagnosed conditions.

On April 20, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration. Counsel submitted a supporting 

brief contending that appellant clearly explained why he did not immediately obtain medical care, 

that appellant only needed to establish that the employment incident contributed in some manner 

to the disabling condition, and that the report of Dr. Ellis was sufficient to meet appellant’s burden 

of proof to establish entitlement to compensation or to require further development of the evidence. 

She contended that Dr. Ellis’s medical narrative, the May 10, 2010 emergency department records, 

and appellant’s statement made it abundantly clear that appellant was experiencing symptoms 

from, and seeking medical treatment for, his diagnosed injuries from the accepted incident. 
6

Counsel further contended that Dr. Ellis’ narrative report provided an extensive and rationalized 

explanation of the causal relationship between appellant’s work injury and his diagnosed 

condition. She concluded by noting that proceedings under FECA were not adversarial. 

In a statement dated April 20, 2017, appellant related that, after the initial injury, he waited 

several days before going to the emergency room as he believed that his symptoms were not severe, 

but they worsened, and he believed he may have internal injuries. He noted that he then saw a 

physician in the emergency room and his primary physician. Appellant noted that his primary 

physician referred him to Dr. Garrison. 

Appellant submitted notes indicating that he was treated at Rapides Regional Medical 

Center on May 10, 2010. He told the attendant that he was involved in a takedown of a prisoner a 

week prior and still had moderate pain in his heart and chest. Appellant also complained of right 

rib pain.

In a March 2, 2017 report, Dr. Ellis repeated the findings from his August 23, 2016 report. 

In addition, he noted that appellant’s original injury of April 30, 2010 consisted of the chest and 

anterior shoulder and severe straining of the sternocleidomastoid junction, the shoulders AC joints,

and the muscles and ligaments that attach to the shoulders. Dr. Ellis indicated that appellant was 

up in the air, came down with the inmate, and landed on his right shoulder, and that this would 

have caused the right shoulder joint to jam into the sternoclavicular junction of the shoulder, 

straining the left shoulder muscles and tearing the ligaments in the left shoulder. He related that 

by appellant having his left arm up abducted at about 90 degrees and then holding the prisoner’s 

left hand with his left hand because the prisoner had a knife meant that the entire left upper arm 

was extremely tight when he fell so when the jerking motion of the inmate pulled on his left 

shoulder, it pulled not only the left shoulder joint muscles and ligaments, but also the 

sternoclavicular joint in the left shoulder. Dr. Ellis reported that this injury caused pain in the

sternoclavicular joint of both shoulders and is indicative of severe, acute straining of the shoulders. 

He noted that, when appellant fell, he contused his right anterior deltoid muscle, right rib cage, 

and right anterior chest area, and these muscles and ligaments attach to the right shoulder. Dr. Ellis

noted that appellant had a bruise that gradually got better. He related that appellant still had so 

much pain that he went to the emergency room on May 10, 2010, which was indicative that he 

suffered much more than simple contusion, but also had suffered significant straining of the 

muscles and ligaments in his shoulder. Once appellant suffered the severe injury to his shoulders 

on April 30, 2010, the activities of daily living would cause continued micro tearing of the muscles 

and ligaments of the shoulders and labrum of the shoulders. Dr. Ellis opined that the labral tear 

was not a cumulative trauma injury. He noted that appellant was unable to find a doctor that would 

treat him, so he treated himself with medications until his symptoms because so severe that he 

started seeking treatment. Dr. Ellis also noted that there was nothing more that appellant could do 

after the original injury until his condition became so severe that it warranted injections and 

surgeries to his shoulders. 

By decision dated August 24, 2017, OWCP denied modification of the October 26, 2016 

decision. It determined that the evidence presented was not of sufficient probative evaluate to alter 

the decision dated October 26, 2016. OWCP noted that the report of Dr. Ellis was not probative 

as it was not contemporaneous with the incident and was equivocal as he did not specify how the 

incident caused the diagnosed conditions.
7

LEGAL PRECEDENT

A claimant seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the essential 

elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, 

including that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that any specific 

condition or disability claimed is causally related to the employment injury.4

To determine if an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether the fact of injury has been established. Generally, fact 

of injury consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. 

The first component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that 

allegedly occurred.

5

 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.6 An employee may establish that an injury occurred in the performance of duty as alleged, 

but fail to establish that the disability or specific condition for which compensation is being 

claimed is causally related to the injury.7

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish that he 

suffered an injury to either shoulder caused or aggravated by the employment incident of 

April 30, 2010. 

The evidence indicates that appellant had issues with his left shoulder prior to the accepted 

April 30, 2010 employment incident. In medical reports dated October 16 and November 15, 

2001, Dr. Garrison noted that he treated appellant for left shoulder rotator cuff tendinitis 

impingement syndrome. He also noted that appellant had prior injuries to his left shoulder many 

years ago when he ran into someone during a football game. 

The first medical report of a shoulder injury after the April 30, 2010 employment incident 

is in an April 25, 2011 report wherein Dr. Brunson noted that appellant had shoulder pain.

Dr. Brunson did not indicate that appellant had a diagnosed medical condition causally related to 

his federal employment incident. In fact, he did not address appellant’s employment at all and 

only noted that he had pain in his shoulder after working out. The Board has found that medical 

 

4 S.S., Docket No. 16-1760 (issued January 23, 2018). 

5 Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

6

John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). Causal relationship is a medical question that generally requires 

rationalized medical opinion evidence to resolve the issue. Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996). A physician’s 

opinion on whether there is a causal relationship between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment 

factor(s) must be based on a complete factual and medical background. Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 

352 (1989). 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). Id.

7 Shirley Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997). 
8

evidence which fails to offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of 

limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship.8

Dr. Garrison noted in a May 24, 2011 report that appellant had residual pain from his 

shoulder that had been ongoing for about five to five and one-half months after an injury occurred 

at the prison as he was taking down a prisoner. He noted that appellant’s history was significant 

for prior left shoulder rotator cuff repair. Dr. Garrison diagnosed appellant with right shoulder 

pain and bursal irritation and impingement and rotator cuff tendinitis, status post injury. He noted 

that appellant may have some irritation within the shoulder itself, but he feared that he may have 

an underling cuff injury or a SLAP-type injury to the shoulder. On December 12, 2013

Dr. Garrison conducted a diagnostic arthroscopy and arthroscopic superior labral repair from 

anterior to posterior and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair along with decompression and distal 

clavicle excision on appellant’s right shoulder. On April 30, 2015 he noted that appellant reported 

no issues with shoulder pain prior to the 2010 employment incident that occurred when he had to 

take down a prisoner during an altercation. Dr. Garrison noted that appellant was treated by his 

office shortly after that incident. He opined that appellant’s incident in 2010 could have definitely 

caused his injuries. On April 18, 2016 Dr. Garrison performed a diagnostic arthroscopic and 

debridement of degenerative superior labral tear, arthroscopic subacromial decompression, 

arthroscopic distal clavicle excision and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair of appellant’s left 

shoulder. The Board finds that Dr. Garrison’s opinions are insufficient to establish causal 

relationship. Initially, the Board notes that Dr. Garrison indicated in his May 24, 2011 report that 

appellant has had residual pain from his shoulder for about five and one-half months following a 

takedown of a prisoner. As the employment incident occurred on April 30, 2010, the incident 

actually occurred over one year prior to his report. In addition, Dr. Garrison noted in his April 23, 

2015 report that appellant had no issues with shoulder pain prior to the incident in 2010. However, 

this is contradicted by Dr. Garrison’s own reports, he treated appellant from October 16, 2001 to 

October 29, 2012 for left rotator cuff tendinitis and impingement syndrome. Dr. Garrison also 

noted that appellant sustained an injury to his left shoulder many years ago during a football game. 

The Board has held that a claimant must submit a rationalized medical opinion based on a complete 

and accurate factual and medical history.9 Furthermore, Dr. Garrison concluded that appellant’s 

incident in 2010 “could definitely have caused” his injuries. The Board finds that his opinion is 

speculative in nature.10

The Board also finds that the opinion of Dr. Ellis is insufficient to establish causal 

relationship or warrant further medical development by OWCP. Dr. Ellis first saw appellant on 

August 23, 2016, over six years after the April 30, 2010 employment incident. He provided a 

complete description as to how the employment incident occurred, discussed appellant’s medical 

history, and conducted a physical examination. Dr. Ellis diagnosed multiple bilateral shoulder 

conditions including right shoulder rotator cuff tear, right shoulder superior labral tear, right 

shoulder acromioclavicular joint arthritis, right shoulder impingement syndrome, right brachial 

plexus impingement, left shoulder rotator cuff tear, left shoulder impingement syndrome, left 

 

8 See C.D., Docket No. 17-1713 (issued February 1, 2018). 

9 S.H., Docket No. 16-0114 (issued February 24, 2016). 

10 C.S., Docket No. 16-1784 (issued May 7, 2018). 
9

shoulder acromioclavicular joint arthritis, left shoulder superior labral tear from anterior to 

posterior, muscle tendon unit strain of the cervical spine, and left brachial plexus impingement. 

He concluded that appellant’s conditions were all causally related to the employment incident and 

noted that appellant jerked the tendons in his shoulder and labrum when he fell. However, Dr. Ellis

did not explain with medical rationale how physiologically appellant’s fall and shoulder jerk would 

have caused any of the diagnosed conditions. Without explaining how, physiologically, the 

movements involved in the employment incident caused or contributed to the diagnosed condition,

his opinion on causal relationship is equivocal in nature and of limited probative value.11 

Furthermore, Dr. Ellis’ report lacks bridging evidence from the accepted incident to his 

diagnoses.12 The Board also notes that he did not evince that he was aware of appellant’s prior 

issues with his left shoulder, which therefore further diminishes the probative value of his opinion. 

Accordingly, Dr. Ellis’ opinion is insufficient to establish causal relationship. 

The diagnostic studies of Dr. Allen and Dr. Taylor are of diminished value. Diagnostic 

test reports are not probative to the issue of causal relationship as they do not offer any opinion 

regarding the cause of an employee’s condition.13

The Board also notes that the opinions of Mr. Carbo, a physician assistant, failed to 

establish appellant’s claim because evidence from a physician assistant does not constitute medical 

evidence under FECA as he is not considered to be a physician as defined under section 8102(2)

of FECA.14

As the evidence does not establish that appellant sustained a medically diagnosed condition 

causally related to the accepted employment incident, he has failed to meet his burden of proof to 

establish entitlement to benefits.

On appeal counsel for appellant contends that the medical evidence established causal 

relationship. In support thereof, she quotes large portions from the reports of Dr. Ellis. Counsel

also contended that the reports of Dr. Ellis were at least sufficient to require further development 

of the evidence. However, for the reasons previously provided, the Board finds that the reports of

Dr. Ellis are insufficient to establish causal relationship, nor are they sufficient to require further 

development of the medical evidence.

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.

 

11 See L.B., Docket No. 17-1600 (issued March 9, 2018). 

12 See P.J., Docket No. 17-0722 (issued August 1, 2017). 

13 J.O., Docket No. 18-0057 (issued May 29, 2018). 

14 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2) provides that a physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, 

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

V.C., Docket No. 16-0542 (issued April 19, 2016); Allen C. Hundley, 53 ECAB 551, 554 (2002) (physician assistant). 
10

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a bilateral 

shoulder injury causally related to the accepted April 30, 2010 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs dated August 24, 2017 is affirmed.

Issued: September 7, 2018

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