United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.V., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Union, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Nos. 21-1121 

Issued: April 4, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Michael D. Overman, 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 July 16, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a February 3, 2021 

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 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 met her burden of proof to establish a medical condition

causally related to the accepted September 18, 2019 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 26, 2019 appellant, then a 64-year-old transportation security officer, filed 

a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 18, 2019 she injured her right 

knee when she tripped and fell on uneven ground while in the performance of duty. She did not

stop work.3

In a development letter dated October 3, 2019, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence.

OWCP received x-ray interpretations dated August 16, 2019 noting a normal pelvic 

interpretation and right knee osteoarthritis.

In a report dated October 4, 2019, Dr. Vincent K. McInerney, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted that on September 18, 2019 appellantinjured her right knee when she tripped while 

walking with a coworker and fell onto her right knee at work. He noted findings on physical 

examination, diagnosed right knee acute meniscal tear and right hip trochanteric bursitis. 

Dr. McInerney related that appellant also had increasing right hip trochanteric bursa pain, which 

he believed was due to the fact that she had been limping with her right foot and had changed her 

gait pattern which further aggravated her right hip pain. In a work status report form of even date,

he diagnosed right medial meniscus tear, right knee patellofemoral arthritis, and right hip 

trochanteric bursitis and he concluded that appellant should remain off work.

An October 4, 2019 right knee x-ray interpretation revealed mild lateral and patellofemoral 

osteoarthrosis.

In an October 10, 2019 report, Dr. Tifani Gleeson, a Board-certified occupational medicine 

physician, reviewed the medical record at the request of the employing establishment. She noted 

that appellant stopped work on October 7, 2019 and that the claim was under review. Dr. Gleeson 

noted that appellant had preexisting right knee and hip conditions that were being treated at the 

time of the fall on September 18, 2019. She opined that the diagnosed conditions had not been 

caused or aggravated by the September 18, 2019 employment incident.

3 OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx552. On October 10, 2019 appellant filed another 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) under OWCP File No. xxxxxx822 alleging that on February 23, 2019 she injured 

her hip when pushing a cart loaded with two full water cooler bottleswhile in the performance of duty. OWCP denied 

that claim by decisions dated November 22, 2019 and February 1, 2021. Appellant’s claims have not been 

administratively combined by OWCP.
3

In a report dated October 24, 2019, Dr. McInerney noted that appellant complained of right 

knee pain. Appellant’s physical examination findings were related as full right knee range of 

motion (ROM), no obvious right knee instability and normal bilateral lower extremity motor 

strength. Dr. McInerney diagnosed right hip trochanteric bursitis and acute right medial meniscal 

tear.

In an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated October 25, 2019, Dr. McInerney 

referenced OWCP File No. xxxxxx822 wherein appellant had fallen at work on February 23, 2019. 

He diagnosed right hip greater trochanteric bursitis. In a duty status form (Form CA-17) of even 

date, Dr. McInerney diagnosed trochanteric bursitis. He again noted the injury date of 

February 23, 2019 under OWCP File No. xxxxxx822.

By decision dated November 7, 2019, OWCP accepted that the September 18, 2019

employment incident occurred, as alleged, but denied appellant’s claim as causal relationship had 

not been established between a diagnosed medical condition and the accepted employment 

incident.

Dr. McInerney, in a December 6, 2019 report, reiterated the findings and conclusions from 

his prior reports. In a work status report form of even date, he diagnosed right medial meniscus 

tear, right knee patellofemoral arthritis, and right hip trochanteric bursitis.

In a December 20, 2019 report, Dr. McInerney related that appellant continued to 

experience right hip trochanteric bursa pain from her claimed February 23, 2019 employment 

injury under OWCP File No. xxxxxx822. He also related that her new injury of September 18, 

2019 was more consistent with right knee medial meniscal tear and some exacerbation of her 

chondromalacia patella. Dr. McInerney, in a work status report form of even date, diagnosed right 

medial meniscus tear and right knee patellofemoral arthritis.

In a March 10, 2020 report, Dr. McInerney diagnosed right hip trochanteric bursitis and 

right knee acute medial meniscal tear. He noted that appellant had increased tenderness of the 

right hip in the trochanteric region following a January 25, 2020 incident during which a chair 

appellant was sitting on at work collapsed and she landed on her right hip. In a work status report 

form of even date, Dr. McInerney diagnosed right medial meniscus tear, right knee patellofemoral 

arthritis, and right hip trochanteric bursitis.

On November 5, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. In support 

of her request, she submitted a September 3, 2019 report from Dr. McInerney. Dr. McInerney

noted that appellant had been struggling with right hip pain. He diagnosed right knee localized 

osteoarthritis and right acetabular labrum tear.

OWCP also received a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of appellant’s right knee 

dated September 9, 2020. The report revealed findings of new small tear of the medial meniscus

junction of the anterior horn and body extending to the inferior articular surface; finding consistent 

with prior meniscectomy of the posterior horn and body medial and lateral meniscus, no new lateral 

tear; progression of chronic ACL tear; new subchondral cystic changes with progressing articular 

chondromalacia and osteoarthritis; suggestion of small loose intra-articular bodies; and synovitis.

By decision dated February 3, 2021, OWCP denied modification.
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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,

5

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.

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 determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. Generally, 

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

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

the employment incident at the time and place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee 

must submit sufficient evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.

8

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical 

opinion evidence.9 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 incident identified by the employee.

10

In a 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 

4

Id.

5 B.P., Docket No. 21-0872 (issued December 8, 2021); 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).

6 B.P., id.; 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).

7 B.P., id.; 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).

8 B.P., id.; T.J., Docket No. 19-0461 (issued August11, 2020);K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019);

John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

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

Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

10 B.P., id.; 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).
5

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

work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition.11

ANALYSIS

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

causally related to the accepted September 18, 2019 employment incident.

In an October 4, 2019 report, Dr. McInerney diagnosed right knee acute meniscal tear and 

right hip trochanteric bursitis. He noted that appellant injured her right knee when she tripped and 

fell onto her right knee at work on September 18, 2019. However, this generalized statement does

not establish causal relationship because it merely repeats her allegation and is unsupported by 

sufficient medical rationale explaining how the accepted September 18, 2019 employment incident 

actually caused a diagnosed medical condition.

12

 The Board has held that a report is of limited 

probative value regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale explaining 

how an employment activity could have caused or aggravated a medical condition .

13

 Thus, this 

report is of limited probative value and insufficient to establish that appellant sustained an 

employment-related injury.

In reports dated September 3, October 24, and December 6 and 20, 2019 and March 10, 

2020, Dr. McInerney diagnosed right knee patellofemoral arthritis, right knee acute medial 

meniscal tear, right knee localized osteoarthritis, right acetabular labrum tear, and right hip 

trochanteric bursitis. However, he did not provide an opinion on a cause of appellant’s diagnosed 

conditions. 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.

14

 As

Dr. McInerney has not offered an opinion as to whether appellant’s diagnosed conditions are 

causally related to the accepted September 18, 2019 employment incident, his reports are of no 

probative value and are, therefore, insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

The record also contains a Form CA-20 and a Form CA-17 dated October 25, 2019 from

Dr. McInerney noting an injury date of February 23, 2019 under and OWCP File No. xxxxxx822 

and diagnosed right hip greater trochanteric bursitis. Dr. McInerney’s diagnosis was related to a 

February 23, 2019 injury date, which was prior to the accepted employment incident of 

September 18, 2019. As such, the right hip diagnosis contained in his October 25, 2019 Form CA17 and Form CA-20 reports, appear to be related to a separate incident occurring prior to the 

accepted employment incident of September 18, 2019, are insufficient to establish a diagnosis of 

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

also L.S.,Docket No. 18-0518 (issued February 19, 2020).

12 See E.S., Docket No. 21-0341 (issued August10, 2021); J.B., Docket No. 18-1006 (issued May 3, 2019).

13 E.S., id.; Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February10, 2017); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 

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

14 D.S., Docket No. 20-0584 (issued June 15, 2021); L.G., Docket No. 20-0433 (issued August 6, 2020); S.D., 

Docket No. 20-0413 (issued July 28, 2020); S.K., Docket No. 20-0102 (issued June 12, 2020); L.B., id.; D.K., id.
6

a right hip condition in connection with the accepted employment incident.15 Thus, these reports 

are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

OWCP also received an October 10, 2019 report from Dr. Gleeson who opined that the 

diagnosed right knee and hip conditions had not been caused or aggravated by the accepted 

September 18, 2019 employment incident. The Board has held that medical evidence that negates 

causal relationship is of no probative value.16 For this reason, this report is insufficient to establish 

causal relationship.

While OWCP also received x-rays dated August 16 and October 4, 2019 and an MRI scan 

dated September 9, 2020, theBoard has held that diagnostic studies, standing alone, lack probative 

value on the issue of causal relationship as they do not address whether the employment incident 

caused any of the diagnosed conditions.

17

 Such reports are, therefore, insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim.

As the medical evidence of record does not contain rationalized medical evidence 

establishing causal relationship between appellant’s diagnosed conditions and the accepted 

September 18, 2019 employment incident, the Board finds that appellant has not met her 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 met not her burden of proof to establish a medical

condition causally related to the accepted September 18, 2019 employment incident.

15 See J.D., Docket No. 16-0887 (issued November 4, 2016; M.E., Docket No. 14-399 (issued June 20, 2014); C.G., 

Docket No. 11-1602 (issued March 23, 2012).

16 C.M.,Docket No. 21-0435 (issued October 22, 2021); E.T., Docket No. 21-0014 (issued May 20, 2021); C.M., 

Docket No. 19-1211 (issued August5, 2020); M.C., Docket No. 19-1074 (issued June 12, 2020).

17 A.B., Docket No. 20-1017 (issued June 11, 2021); B.P., Docket No. 21-0872 (issued December 8, 2021); T.J., 

Docket No. 19-1339 (issued March 4, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0216 (issued December 13, 2019); A.B., Docket No. 

17-0301 (issued May 19, 2017).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision dated February 3, 2021 of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 4, 2022

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