United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER/FACILITY, 

Knoxville, TN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0393

Issued: October 14, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 26, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 1, 2020 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.2

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the December 1, 2020 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence. 

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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted August 5, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 6, 2020 appellant, then a 44-year-old mail processing clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 5, 2020 she injured her shoulder when a bad 

wheel on a general postal container (GPC) caused her to pull a muscle in her shoulder while in the 

performance of duty. She did not stop work. In a statement which accompanied the claim form, 

appellant indicated that she injured her right shoulder when she tried to push a GPC, which had a 

stiff wheel, across the aisle.

In an August 6, 2020 report, Carrie Neal, an advanced practice nurse, noted that appellant 

had been experiencing pain in her right shoulder after pushing a GPC the day before. On review 

of an x-ray scan of her right shoulder, she observed no evidence of a fracture, dislocation, or a 

destructive lesion and diagnosed a right shoulder strain. 

On August 8, 2020 the employing establishment offered appellant a modified assignment,

which required scanning mail for seven hours per day. 

In an August 13, 2020 medical report, Dr. James Howell, Board-certified in family 

medicine, evaluated appellant for a right shoulder injury. Appellant informed him that she was 

pushing a GPC and felt a pain in her right shoulder. Dr. Howell diagnosed a right shoulder strain 

and recommended physical therapy. In a September 3, 2020 medical report, he noted appellant’s 

physical therapy treatment for her right shoulder strain and recommended that she undergo a 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan for further evaluation. 

In a September 10, 2020 diagnostic report, Dr. Phillip Clark, a Board-certified diagnostic 

radiologist, performed an MRI scan of appellant’s right upper extremity, finding moderate rotator 

cuff tendinosis with low-grade partial-thickness tearing and mild subacromial subdeltoid bursitis. 

In a medical report of even date, Dr. Howell reviewed the MRI scan of appellant’s right shoulder

and diagnosed a right shoulder strain, a tear of the right supraspinatus tendon and a tear of the right 

infraspinatus tendon.

Appellant also submitted physical therapy reports dated August 25 to October 1, 2020 in 

which she was evaluated and treated for her diagnosis of a strain of an unspecified muscle, fascia 

and tendon at shoulder and upper arm level, right arm. She reported that she was pushing a cart at 

work when the wheel bounded and slowed the cart down, causing her to experience pain in the

right shoulder. 

In an October 26, 2020 development letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of 

her claim and instructed her as to the factual and medical evidence necessary to establish her claim. 

It requested that she submit a narrative medical report from her physician, which contained a 

detailed description of findings and diagnoses, explaining how the alleged incident caused or 

aggravated her medical condition. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. 
3

Appellant submitted additional physical therapy reports dated from October 6 to 9, 2020. 

In a September 25, 2020 medical report, Dr. Justin Kennon, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, evaluated appellant for pain in her right shoulder and arm. He observed that on August 5, 

2020 she was pushing a heavy cart and later felt significant discomfort in the anterior and posterior 

aspect of her shoulder with radiating pain down her right arm and fingers. On examination and 

review of her diagnostic studies, Dr. Kennon diagnosed cervical radiculopathy.

In an October 28, 2020 medical report, Dr. Colin Booth, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, evaluated appellant for neck pain radiating into the anterior radial aspect of the right arm 

that she experienced after pushing a heavy object at work in August. On examination, he 

diagnosed bilateral C6 radiculopathy right greater than left. 

By decision dated December 1, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that she had not submitted medical evidence from a qualifying physician containing a 

diagnosis in connection with her claimed injury. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had 

not been met to establish an injury as defined under FECA. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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 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 determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

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

There are two components involved in establishing the fact of injury. First, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident 

at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit evidence, in the 

form of medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.7

3

Supra note 1.

4

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5

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

ECAB 312 (1988).

6 R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April 25, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January9, 2019);see 5 U.S.C. §8101(5)(injury defined); 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.5(ee), 

10.5(q) 
4

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.8 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the accepted employment incident must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background.9 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 the 

specific employment incident.10

ANALYSIS

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

Dr. Howell, in his August 13 and September 10, 2020 medical reports, indicated that 

appellant experienced pain in her right shoulder after pushing a GPC at work. On examination 

and review of an MRI scan of her right shoulder, he diagnosed a right shoulder strain, a tear of the 

right supraspinatus tendon and a tear of the right infraspinatus tendon. Additionally, Drs. Kennon 

and Booth examined appellant and diagnosed cervical radiculopathy after she reported sustaining 

a right upper extremity injury in August 2020 as a result of pushing a heavy cart at work. 

Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence of record establishes a diagnosed medical condition

in connection to the accepted August 5, 2020 employment incident.

As the medical evidence of record establishes a diagnosed medical condition, the case must 

be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence with regard to the issue of causal 

relationship. Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP 

shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition. The Board further finds, however, that the case is not in posture for decision with regard 

to causal relationship.

8 T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008); RobertG. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

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

10 Id.; Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 1, 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: October 14, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board