United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Chelsea, MA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0170

Issued: September 29, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

John L. DeGeneres, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 16, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

November 3, 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 to consider 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 left hip osteoarthritis 

causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 15, 2018 appellant, then a 50-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed severe degenerative changes in his left hip as a 

result of his federal employment, including walking up and down stairs and lifting. He noted that 

he first became aware of his condition on April 30, 2018 and realized its relationship to his federal 

employment on May 1, 2018. Appellant did not stop work.

An x-ray of the left hip dated May 11, 2018 revealed severe degenerative changes with 

bone on bone articulation, subchondral cystic change, and sclerosis. 

In a June 11, 2018 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of his 

claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and provided a 

questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to provide the requested

information.

In a June 14, 2018 medical report, Dr. Hugh O’Flynn, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted that appellant presented for left hip pain, which he related began on April 30, 2018 

when he was walking in the office and his left hip gave out. On physical examination, he noted 

significant discomfort during left hip flexion, internal rotation, and external rotation. Dr. O’Flynn 

reviewed imaging studies, which he indicated showed significant femoroacetabular joint space

narrowing with osteophyte formation throughout the femoral neck and sclerotic changes 

throughout the acetabulum. He diagnosed left hip osteoarthritis and noted that it was not 

symptomatic until a recent work injury on April 30, 2018. Dr. O’Flynn recommended a left hip 

arthroplasty. 

In a June 29, 2018 letter, Dr. O’Flynn again noted appellant’s history of his left hip giving 

out while he was walking in the office on April 30, 2018. He opined to a reasonable degree of 

medical certainty that the diagnosis of left hip osteoarthritis was directly related to an April 30, 

2018 work injury. 

By decision dated July 20, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the factual 

component of fact of injury had not been established. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements 

had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

OWCP continued to receive medical evidence. In a July 25, 2018 letter, Dr. O’Flynn 

reiterated that appellant’s left hip condition was directly related to an April 30, 2018 work injury. 

He further noted that appellant would walk many miles, climb in and out of his postal vehicle, and 

climb up and down stairs frequently throughout the day. Dr. O’Flynn opined that these repetitive 

movements also contributed to appellant’s diagnosis.
3

On August 20, 2018 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review, which he later amended to a request for review of the written 

record.

By decision dated December 14, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

July 20, 2018 decision. 

On November 18, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the 

December 14, 2018 decision. 

In support of his request, appellant submitted an April 11, 2019 statement indicating that 

he worked for the employing establishment for 19 years. Each day, he spent one hour setting up 

his route, which involved pushing and pulling tubs of mail around the office and standing 

continuously with frequent bending at the hips, squatting, reaching, stooping, twisting and pivoting 

on his feet. Appellant alleged that he walked for six to seven hours per day, totaling five to six 

miles, including up and down hills, stairs and curbs. His mail satchel weighed up to 35 pounds, 

and packages weighed up to 70 pounds. Appellant asserted that he delivered 750 pieces of mail 

or packages per day, and that the amount of package deliveries had substantially increased in recent 

years.

On December 26, 2019 OWCP referred appellant along with a statement of accepted facts 

(SOAF), a set of questions, and the medical record to Dr. Christopher Rynne, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion evaluation to determine the nature and extent of his 

alleged employment-related condition.

In his February 5, 2020 medical report, Dr. Rynne reviewed the SOAF, history of injury, 

and the medical evidence of record. Appellant informed him that his symptoms began on April 30, 

2018 while walking at work. Dr. Rynne indicated that appellant’s description of his job duties was 

consistent with the information provided by the SOAF, and that he had previously played soccer 

for many years. He noted that appellant continued working until he underwent a left total hip 

replacement on January 22, 2019. Appellant remained out of work until he returned to light duty 

on April 23, 2019, followed by full duty in July 2019. On examination, he found discrepancies in 

hip flexion and rotation. Dr. Rynne diagnosed osteoarthritis of the left hip, and explained that 

wear and tear clearly contributes to the development of degenerative arthritis, but that it alone was

rarely the major cause. He found that appellant’s history of playing soccer would have contributed 

to a greater extent than his employment duties. He concluded that his condition was not directly 

caused, aggravated, accelerated, or precipitated by his employment. 

By decision dated February 13, 2020, OWCP modified its prior decision, finding that 

appellant had established a valid medical diagnosis. However, the claim remained denied, as the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between his diagnosed 

medical conditions and the accepted employment factors. It accorded the weight of the medical 

evidence to Dr. Rynne.

On February 27, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of OWCP’s 

February 13, 2020 decision, arguing that it committed error in failing to issue a de novo decision.

By decision dated July 28, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. 
4

On August 5, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of OWCP’s 

July 28, 2020 decision arguing that it erred in according the weight of the evidence to Dr. Rynne’s 

February 5, 2020 second opinion evaluation. 

By decision dated November 3, 2020, OWCP denied modification of the July 28, 2020 

decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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,4that 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.5 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. 6

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 the 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 

casually related to the identified employment factors.7

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.8 The opinion of the physician must be based upon a complete factual 

and medical background, 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 incident.9

 

3

Supra note 1.

4 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

5 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).

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

DeloresC.Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 T.W., Docket No. 20-0767 (issued January 13, 2021); L.D., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); S.C., 

Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019).

8

I.J., Docket No. 19-1343 (issued February 26, 2020); T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 

238 (1996).

9 D.C., Docket No. 19-1093 (issued June 25, 2020); see L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018).
5

In any case where a preexisting condition involving the same part of the body is present 

and the issue of causal relationship therefore involves aggravation, acceleration, or precipitation, 

the physician must provide a rationalized medical opinion that differentiates between the effects 

of the work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition.10

ANALYSIS

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

In his February 5, 2020 report, Dr. Rynne, serving as the second opinion examiner, 

provided contradictory opinions which require clarification. He opined that wear and tear clearly 

contributes to the development of degenerative arthritis. However, Dr. Rynne also concluded that 

appellant’s condition was not directly caused, aggravated, accelerated or precipitated by his 

employment. As his opinion is contradictory, and because appellant need only establish that the 

accepted factors of employment contributed to the development of his osteoarthritis,11 OWCP was 

required to seek clarification from Dr. Rynne. As it undertook development of the evidence by 

referring appellant to Dr. Rynne, it had the duty to secure an appropriate report based on an 

accurate factual and medical background and which is internally consistent.12

Accordingly, this case will be remanded to OWCP for further development of the medical 

evidence. On remand OWCP shall refer appellant along with an updated SOAF, a complete 

medical record, and a list of specific questions to Dr. Rynne, and instruct him to clarify his opinion 

as to whether the accepted work factors contributed to a newly diagnosed condition or caused an 

aggravation of a preexisting condition. Alternatively, if he is unavailable or unwilling to provide 

a supplemental opinion, OWCP shall refer appellant to a new second opinion physician. After this 

and other such further development as deemed necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

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

 

10 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013);

D.W., Docket No. 20-0674 (issued September 29, 2020); V.W., Docket No. 19-1537 (issued May 13, 2020); N.C., 

Docket No. 19-1191 (issued December 19, 2019); R.D., Docket No. 18-1551 (issued March 1, 2019).

11 Id.

12 See A.P., Docket No. 17-0813 (issued January 3, 2018); RichardF. Williams, 55 ECAB 343, 346 (2004).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 3, 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: September 29, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board