United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Tampa, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0872

Issued: August 22, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 19, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 13, 2022 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 met her burden of proof to establish a left knee condition 

causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 11, 2022 appellant, then a 54-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational disease

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed a left knee condition due to factors of her federal 

employment, including excessive walking and lifting. She explained that she experienced left knee 

pain, which worsened throughout the workday and eventually resulted in her developing a limp 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

and an inability to completely bear weight on the left leg by the end of her shift. Appellant noted 

that she first became aware of her condition on February 15, 2022 and its relation to her federal 

employment on March 22, 2022. She stopped work on March 24, 2022.

In an attached statement dated April 11, 2022, appellant explained that she began 

experiencing pain in her left knee in February 2022, and while working on March 22, 2022 the 

pain in her knee worsened to the point that she was unable to bear weight. She noted that she 

visited the emergency room that day, was prescribed a knee brace and crutches, and was given 

restrictions of no weight-bearing activities until she was cleared by a physician. Appellant asserted 

that her work duties are historically associated with knee injuries. She noted that she worked 8 to 

10 hours a day, standing and walking on concrete floors. A left knee magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) scan of even date revealed a radial tear of the medial meniscus and mild-to-moderate 

tricompartmental osteoarthritis.

In an April 12, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

her claim. Specifically, it advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to 

establish her claim and provided a factual questionnaire for her completion. In a separate 

development letter of even date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide 

comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding the accuracy of her allegations. It afforded 

both parties 30 days to respond.

A March 22, 2022 note by Dr. Peter Samuel, a Board-certified emergency medicine 

specialist, indicated that appellant could return to work with restrictions of no weight-bearing on 

the left knee until evaluated by a doctor.

In a statement dated March 23, 2022, appellant noted that there was no specific incident 

that caused her injury. She asserted that she began experiencing pain and swelling while working 

in February 2022, which progressed until she was eventually treated at the emergency room on 

March 22, 2022.

OWCP also received a duplicate copy of the April 11, 2022 left knee MRI scan.

In a May 3, 2022 response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, the employing 

establishment asserted that appellant had not reported her claimed injury or any related 

employment incidents prior to March 24, 2022. It contended that she provided a statement wherein

she was unable to describe the alleged injury or incident and had not established causation. The 

employing establishment concluded that appellant had been trained on proper safety protocol and 

the use of ergonomic devices and, thus, had not substantiated her claim.

By decision dated May13, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that the evidence of record did not establish a causal relationship between the accepted 

factors of her federal employment and her diagnosed left knee condition.
3

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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation, that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any 

disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the 

employment injury.3 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease. 4

An occupational disease is defined as a condition produced by the work environment over 

a period longer than a single workday or shift.5 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 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 employment factors identified by the claimant were the proximate 

cause of the condition for which compensation is claimed or, stated differently, medical evidence 

establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified 

by the claimant.6

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish causal 

relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.

7

 Rationalized medical opinion evidence is 

medical evidence which includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there 

is a causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated 

employment factors.8 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and 

medical background of the claimant, 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 factors identified by the claimant. 9

2

Supra note 1.

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 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).

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q).

6

Solomon Polen, 51 ECAB 341 (2000).

7 A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April24, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 

238 (1996).

8

Supra note 6

9 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 

345, 352 (1989).
4

ANALYSIS

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

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

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a March 23, 2022 note by Dr, Samuel 

providing work restrictions. The Board has held that a report that does not address causal 

relationship is of no probative value.

10

 Thus, Dr. Samuel’s medical note is insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim.

Appellant also submitted an April 11, 2022 MRI scan of her left knee. The Board has held 

that diagnostic studies, standing alone, lack probative value and are insufficient to establish the 

claim.11 Consequently, this evidence is also insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

CONCLUSION

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

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

10 L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

11 See B.R., Docket No. 21-1109 (issued December 28, 2021); J.K., Docket No. 20-0591 (issued August12, 2020);

A.B., Docket No. 17-0301 (issued May 19, 2017).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 13, 2022 merit decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 22, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board