United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.A., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

U.S. COAST GUARD, Elizabeth City, NC, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0478

Issued: October 14, 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 February 8, 2021 appellantfiled a timely appealfroma January 20,2021merit 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 left shoulder

condition causally related to the accepted February 21, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 5, 2020 appellant, then a 58-year-old boiler operator, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging a left shoulder injury on February 21, 2020. He explained that 

beginning on the evening of February 19, 2020 he was lifting bags of salt weighing 50 pounds, 

however, the next day he could only lift 13 pounds and developed soreness in his left shoulder 

over the following two days until on February 21, 2020 he could no longer lift without 

experiencing sharp stabbing pain in his shoulder. Appellant explained that he developed a possible 

tear in the left shoulder and an inability to use his arm. He stopped work on February 25, 2020

and returned to work on March 10, 2020. 

On April 22, 2020 Dr. Michael Bradley, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, noted that 

appellant had undergone magnetic resonance imaging of the left shoulder which revealed a 

superior labral tear extending anteriorly and posteriorly, tendinopathy of the distal supra- and 

infraspinatus tendons, and intra-articular long-head biceps tendinopathy with acromioclavicular 

(AC) joint hypertrophy. On examination of the left shoulder, he found tenderness over the AC 

joint, subacromial space, anterior triceps, and anterior joint line, moderate pain with forward 

flexion, abduction, and internal and external rotation, and positive Neer, Hawkins and cross-over 

testing. Dr. Bradley diagnosed a superior glenoid labrum lesion, rotator cuff tear and primary 

osteoarthritis of the left shoulder. 

In a June 11, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of his 

claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to establish his claim 

and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. 

OWCP continued to receive medical evidence, including a March 4, 2020 medical report 

from Dr. Bradley, who noted that appellant related a history of left shoulder pain for the past year 

or two, which had worsened over the last six months. In a report of even date, Dr. Bradley also 

indicated that appellant injured his shoulder years ago and it had been wearing down through the 

years.

In a follow-up visit on March 20, 2020, Dr. Bradley noted that appellant continued to 

experience pain which interfered with his activities of daily living and was keeping him awake at 

night. He diagnosed a labral tear and recommended physical therapy, followed by surgery. 

In a physical therapy initial evaluation report dated April 10, 2020, Benjamin Lowry, a 

licensed physical therapist, noted that appellant related a history of shoulder pain on and off for a 

few years, and that appellant was recently lifting heavy bags of salt and had significant pain which 

caused him to be unable to work. 
3

By decision July 23, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that his left shoulder condition was causally related 

to the accepted February 21, 2020 employment incident. 

On August 7, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

In an August 12, 2020 report, Dr. Bradley noted that appellant related a history that his left 

shoulder problem began at work, but appellant’s claim had been denied. He diagnosed pain, a 

rotator cuff tear, a superior glenoid labrum lesion, and primary osteoarthritis of the left shoulder. 

Dr. Bradley commented that “this happened back in March [2020],” but also noted that the original 

injury occurred on February 21, 2020 when, after three nights of lifting and pouring bags of salt 

into a water softening system, appellant could not lift his arm up due to severe pain. He indicated 

that the mechanism of injury, symptoms and diagnoses were consistent with appellant’s 

description of the work incident. 

A hearing was held on November 6, 2020. OWCP’s hearing representative held the record 

open for 30 days for the submission of additional evidence. 

In an October 16, 2020 follow-up visit, Dr. Bradley noted that appellant’s pain was under 

control, and that he could return to work with no use of the left arm as of November 9, 2020. 

By decision dated January 20, 2021, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the July 23, 

2020 decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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,3that the claim was timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period of FECA, that 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.4 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.5

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. The first component is that the 

employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the 

3 K.R., Docket No. 20-0995 (issued January 29, 2021); A.W., Docket No. 19-0327 (issued July 19, 2019); S.B., 

Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

4

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

ECAB 312 (1988).

5

J.B., Docket No. 20-1566 (issued August31, 2021); 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).
4

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.6 

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

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 7 The opinion of 

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.8

In a case in which 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.9

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted February 21, 2020 employment incident.

In his August 12, 2020 report, Dr. Bradley noted that appellant’s left shoulder problem 

began at work on February 21, 2020 when, after lifting 50-pound bags of salt over three nights, 

appellant could no longer lift his arm up due to severe pain. He opined that the mechanism of

injury, symptoms, and injury itself were consistent with the description of what happened at work. 

However, Dr. Bradley did not explain a pathophysiological process of how any of appellant’s work 

duties contributed to his left shoulder condition.

10

 The Board has held that a medical opinion that 

does not offer a medically sound and rationalized explanation by the physician of how the specific 

employment incident physiologically caused or aggravated the diagnosed conditions is of limited 

probative value.

11

 Therefore, Dr. Bradley’s August 12, 2020 report is insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim. 

6 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).

7

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April24, 2019); RobertG. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238(1996).

8 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).

9 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January2013); J.L., 

Docket No. 20-0717 (issued October 15, 2020).

10 J.D., Docket No. 19-1953 (issued January 11, 2021); J.C., Docket No. 18-1474 (issued March 20, 2019); M.M.,

Docket No. 15-0607 (issued May 15, 2015); M.W., Docket No. 14-1664 (issued December 5, 2014).

11 J.B., Docket No. 21-0011 (issued April20, 2021); A.M., Docket No. 19-1394 (issued February 23, 2021); 
5

In his March 4, 2020 report, Dr. Bradley noted that appellant related a history of left 

shoulder pain for the past year or two, which had worsened over the last six months. However, he 

did not provide an opinion as to the cause of appellant’s left shoulder condition. Dr. Bradley, 

likewise, did not offer any opinion as to causation in his April 22 and October 16, 2020 reports or 

in the October 1, 2020 operative report. The Board has held that a medical report that does not 

render an opinion on causal relationship is of no probative value and, thus, is insufficient to 

establish the claim.12 Thus, Dr. Bradley’s additional reports are also insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof.

The remainder of the medical evidence consists of physical therapy records and notes. 

These reports have no probative value, however, because physical therapists are not considered 

physicians as defined under FECA.13

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence to establish a left shoulder

condition causally related to the accepted February 21, 2020 employment incident, the Board finds 

that he has not met his burden of proof.

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.

CONCLUSION

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

condition causally related to the accepted February 21, 2020 employment incident.

14

12 T.D., Docket No. 19-1779 (issued March 9, 2021).

13 Section 8102(2) of FECA provides as follows: (2) physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical 

psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined 

by State law. 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See supra note 9 at Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January2013); 

David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006) (lay individuals such as physician assistants, nurses, and physical 

therapists are not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA); E.W., Docket No. 20-0338 (issued October 9, 

2020); see also R.L., Docket No. 19-0440 (issued July 8, 2019) (a physical therapist is not a physician under FECA; 

Jane White, 34 ECAB 515, 518 (1983) (physical therapists are not considered physicians under FECA).

14 To the extent that appellant is alleging an injury occurring over more than one workday or work shift, he may 

file an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 20, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 14, 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