United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, EL SOBRANTE POST 

OFFICE, El Sobrante, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1286

Issued: April 6, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 25, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 1, 2021 merit decision 

and a May 27, 2021 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 medical 

condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment; and (2) whether 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the May 27, 2021 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP. 

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 October 7, 2020 appellant, then a 55-year-old sales and services distribution associate, 

filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she injured her right wrist, hand, 

and arm due to factors of her federal employment, including reaching further in front of her to pull 

and lift each package towards her and then to the right to the scale due to new COVID-19 plastic 

dividers installed at her workstation. She explained that she had to lift packages at arm’s length

and above her shoulders numerous times each day. Appellant reported that she first became aware 

of her claimed injury on February 6, 2017 and of its relation to her federal employment on 

September 22, 2020. On the reverse side of the claim form, appellant’s supervisor, M.P., indicated

that appellant had been placed on light duty due to restrictions and was working up to 25 percent

of her regular shift. M.P. noted that the retail counter where appellant worked was 31 inches deep, 

so appellant could slide packages and thus had no reason to lift them at arm’s length.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a September 24, 2020 work restriction note 

signed by Dr. Carmela Romano, a Board-certified osteopath, advising that appellant should be on 

modified duty until November 23, 2020. Dr. Romano noted that appellant could use repetitive 

motions with her right hand for up to 25 percent of her shift and with her left hand for up to 75

percent of her shift. He further advised that appellant could grip and grasp with her right hand for 

up to 25 percent of her shift and with her left hand for up to 75 percent of her shift, could lift, carry, 

push, and pull no more than 10 pounds for no longer than 20 minutes per hour, and should never 

use a keyboard or mouse.

OWCP also received an October 1, 2020 letter from appellant to the postmaster, S.C., 

requesting light duty through November 23, 2020 per her doctor’s recommendation. In an offer

of light duty of even date, the employing establishment offered appellant a modified sales and 

services distribution associate position through November 23, 2020 in accordance with

Dr. Romano’s instructions and limited appellant’s work to two hours per workday. Appellant 

accepted the light-duty offer.

In a development letter dated October 19, 2020, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

required and provided a questionnaire for her completion. In a separate development letter of even 

date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide additional information. It 

afforded both parties 30 days to respond. 

OWCP subsequently received a position description dated September 28, 2019 detailing 

appellant’s employment duties. 

Appellant responded to OWCP’s development questionnaire on October 26, 2020,

reporting that she first noticed right upper extremity pain in February 2017 while sorting P.O. Box 

mail and began pain medication and light duty. She believed that heavy lifting, repeated 

movement, and reaching above her right shoulder at work contributed to her conditions. 

Appellant’s symptoms improved with duty modifications, but she continued to have minor flare 
3

ups. She advised that she was undergoing physical therapy and working with a brace. Appellant 

explained that outside of work, she engaged in boating and motorcycle riding as a passenger and 

used a computer for 10 to 30 minutes per day.

In an October 27, 2020 report, Dr. Kevin Maher, Board-certified in occupational medicine, 

related appellant’s history of injury. Examination of the right upper extremity revealed tenderness 

to palpation of the medial epicondyle at the right elbow and a positive Finkelstein’s test. Dr. Maher 

diagnosed a repetitive strain injury, tendinitis of the right wrist, right medial epicondylitis, right 

forearm muscle strain, and de Quervain’s tenosynovitis. He opined that the mechanism of injury 

was repetitive heavy lifting at work on August 3, 2020, which was “consistent with [his] clinical 

exam[ination] findings and no information ha[d] been presented that would indicate a cause other 

than the alleged employment event/exposure.” Dr. Maher recommended physical therapy and 

extended appellant’s work restrictions through November 30, 2020. In a work status report of 

even date, he diagnosed right medial epicondylitis and extended the work restrictions through 

November 30, 2020.

In the employing establishment’s November 17, 2020 response to OWCP’s development 

questionnaire, M.P. repeated her factual challenge to appellant’s claim, noting that customers 

could slide packages across the counter and thus there was no reason for appellant to lift packages 

at arm’s length. She noted that appellant had to lift packages 1 to 2 inches from the counter to the 

scale, including intermittent packages up to 35 pounds and occasional packages up to 70 pounds.

In a November 30, 2020 progress report, Dr. Maher related appellant’s history of injury 

and indicated that the reduction in appellant’s work hours improved her condition somewhat. He 

also noted that appellant did not engage in any outside activities that might cause her symptoms. 

Dr. Maher continued to diagnose a repetitive strain injury, tendinitis of the right wrist, right medial 

epicondylitis, right forearm muscle strain, and de Quervain’s tenosynovitis. He extended 

appellant’s work restrictions through December 29, 2020.

By decision dated January 5, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that the implicated employment factors had not been established. Itnoted that the evidence 

of record contained factual inconsistencies. OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements 

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

On February 1, 2021 appellant submitted several electronic message exchanges between 

herself and Dr. Romano dated February 6, 2017 through October 1, 2020 in which appellant 

reported right upper extremity symptoms and Dr. Romano recommended different forms of pain 

management.

In a November 30 work status report, Dr. Maher diagnosed right medial epicondylitis and 

extended appellant’s work restrictions through December 29, 2020. In his December 29, 2020 

progress report, he noted that appellant’s conditions were “work-related” related andthat appellant 

felt she was 70 percent improved. Dr. Maher diagnosed a repetitive strain injury, tendinitis of the

right wrist, right medial epicondylitis, right forearm muscle strain, and de Quervain’s 

tenosynovitis. He recommended continued physical therapy and extended appellant’s work 

restrictions through January 29, 2021. In a work status note of even date, Dr. Maher diagnosed 

right medial epicondylitis and extended appellant’s work restrictions through January 29, 2021.
4

On February 1, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. She submitted a January 27, 

2021 letter clarifying several factual matters raised in OWCP’s January 5, 2021 decision. 

Appellant also submitted an offer of modified assignment from the employing establishment dated 

April 13, 2017, which appellant accepted.

OWCP also received a January 29, 2021 progress note from Dr. Maher in which he related 

that appellant’s symptoms remained unresolved. Dr. Maher continued to diagnose a repetitive 

strain injury, tendinitis of the right wrist, right medial epicondylitis, right forearm muscle strain, 

and de Quervain’s tenosynovitis. He advised that appellant should be transferred to a physical 

medicine and rehabilitation specialist for treatment of symptoms related to the alleged August 3, 

2020 employment incident. Dr. Maher extended appellant’s work restrictions through March 1, 

2021 and added that appellant should not reach above her shoulders.

By decision dated April 1, 2021, OWCP modified the January 5, 2021 decision, finding 

that the evidence of record established the implicated employment factors. The claim remained 

denied, however, as the evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between 

appellant’s diagnosed conditions and the accepted factors of her federal employment.

On May 13, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. In support of her request, she 

submitted a Form CA-2 dated February 10, 2017 in which she alleged that she developed repetitive 

strain of her right arm muscles due to factors of her federal employment, including repetitive use 

of her right arm while “working the [P.O.] [B]ox letters and window service.”

3

In a May 13, 2021 work restriction note, Dr. Vatche Cabayan, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, listed appellant’s date of injury as October 7, 2020. He advised that appellant could work 

up to four hours a day with repetitive use of the right upper extremity for 25 percent of the day and 

the left upper extremity for 75 percent of the day. Dr. Cabayan indicated that appellant should not 

lift, push, or pull more than 10 pounds.

By decision dated May 27, 2021, 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 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 period 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 

3 Appellant’s employing establishment supervisor, J.S., signed the reverse side of the claim form on February 14, 

2017, but OWCP noted in its April 1, 2021 decision that it had never received this claim form.

4

Supra note 1.

5

S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).
5

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 establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (1) a factual statement identifying 

employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence o f 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 causally related to the identified employment factors. 8

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.9 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 

complete factual and medical background.10 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).11

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

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

In medical reports dated October 27, November 30, December 29, 2020, and January 29, 

2021, Dr. Maher diagnosed a repetitive strain injury, tendinitis of the right wrist, right medial 

epicondylitis, right forearm muscle strain, and de Quervain’s tenosynovitis and opined that 

appellant’s conditions were work related. In the October 27, 2020 report, he indicated that the 

mechanism of injury was repetitive heavy lifting at work on August 3, 2020, which was “consistent 

with [his] clinical exam[ination] findings and no information ha[d] been presented that would 

indicate a cause other than the alleged employment event/exposure.” In his November 30, 2020 

progress report, Dr. Maher indicated that the reduction in appellant’s work hours improved her 

condition somewhat and noted that appellant did not engage in any outside activities that might 

cause her symptoms. While he provided affirmative opinions suggestive of causal relationship, he

did not offer medical rationale sufficient to explain why he believed appellant’s employment duties 

6

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

7 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).

8 R.G., Docket No. 19-0233 (issued July 16, 2019). See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Ruby I. 

Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).

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

10 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018).

11 Id.; Victor J. Woodhams,supra note 8.
6

could have resulted in or contributed to her diagnosed conditions. Without identifying specific 

employment duties or explaining how they caused or aggravated appellant’s conditions, these 

medical reports are of limited probative value and are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of 

proof.12

Appellant also submitted work restriction notes dated September 24, 2020 through May 13, 

2021 from Drs. Romano, Maher, and Cabayan. None of these notes offered an opinion on 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.13 

For this reason, the work restriction notes are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence sufficient to establish that 

her diagnosed medical conditions were caused or aggravated by the accepted factors of her federal 

employment, the Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof.14

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.15

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.16

12 See A.P., Docket No. 19-0224 (issued July 11, 2019).

13 S.J., Docket No. 19-0696 (issued August23, 2019); M.C., Docket No. 18-0951 (issued January 7, 2019); L.B., 

Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

14 See T.J., Docket No. 19-1339 (issued March 4, 2020); F.D., Docket No. 19-0932 (issued October 3, 2019); D.N., 

Docket No. 19-0070 (issued May 10, 2019); R.B., Docket No. 18-1327 (issued December 31, 2018).

15 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a);see L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019);see also V.P., Docket No. 17-1287 

(issued October 10, 2017);D.L., Docket No. 09-1549 (issued February 23, 2010); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).

16 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3);see L.D.,id.;see also L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 (issued March 3, 2010);C.N., Docket 

No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008).
7

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.17 If OWCP chooses to grant reconsideration, it 

reopens and reviews the case on its merits.18 If the request is timely, but fails to meet at least one 

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

reopening the case for review on the merits.19

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, appellant has not advanced a relevant legal argument not 

previously considered. Consequently, she 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).20

The Board further finds that appellant did not submit relevant and pertinent new evidence 

in support of her reconsideration request under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). The underlying issue on 

reconsideration is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish right upper extremity

conditions causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. This is a medical 

issue which is addressed by relevant medical evidence not previously considered. 21

In support of her request for reconsideration, appellant submitted a Form CA-2 dated 

February 10, 2017 and a work restriction note from Dr. Cabayan dated May 13, 2021. However, 

a Form CA-2 does not constitute relevant and pertinent new evidence as it is not medical evidence. 

Further, Dr. Cabayan’s note does not address causal relationship and is, therefore, irrelevant to the 

underlying issue in this case.22 The Board has held that the submission of evidence that does not 

address the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case. 23 Therefore, 

17 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a). The one-year period begins on the next day after the date of the original contested 

decision. For merit decisions issued on or after August 29, 2011, a request for reconsideration must be received by 

OWCP within one year of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 

-- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 (September 2020). 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.

18 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(a); see also A.F., Docket No. 19-1832 (issued July 21, 2020);M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

19 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(b); J.B., Docket No. 20-0145 (issued September 8, 2020); Y.K., Docket No. 18-1167 (issued 

April 2, 2020); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued March 18, 2010).

20 C.B., Docket No. 18-1108 (issued January 22, 2019).

21 Y.L., Docket No. 20-1025 (issued November 25, 2020); Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393 (1984); 

Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224 (1979).

22 See id.

23 See T.T., Docket No. 19-0319 (issued October 26, 2020); AlanG. Williams, 52 ECAB 180 (2000); Jacqueline M. 

Nixon-Steward, 52 ECB 140 (2000).
8

OWCP properly determined that appellant is not entitled to further review of the merits of her

claim based on the third above-noted requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).24

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.25

CONCLUSION

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

condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. The Board further 

finds that OWCP properly denied her request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 1 and May 27, 2021 decisions of the Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: April 6, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

24 Supra note 16.

25 J.B., supra note 19;D.G., Docket No. 19-1348 (issued December 2, 2019).