United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MILWAUKEE 

VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY, 

Milwaukee, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1206

Issued: March 24, 2022

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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 4, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a June 22, 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 has met his burden of proof to establish medical conditions 

causally related to the accepted July 9, 2019 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.3 The facts and circumstances of the case 

as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts 

are as follows.

On July 10, 2019 appellant, then a 56-year-old body repairman, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 9, 2019 he sustained a pinched nerve in his left shoulder 

when he lifted a Long Life Vehicle (LLV) door while in the performance of duty. He stopped 

work on that date and returned to modified duty on July 10, 2019. 

In a July 12, 2019 duty status form report (Form CA-17), Dr. Cindy Catania, an osteopath 

Board-certified in family medicine, noted a July 9, 2019 date of injury. She indicated clinical 

findings of left shoulder impingement syndrome and left upper back muscle spasm. 

In an October 17, 2019 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that it had reopened 

his claim for reconsideration of the merits because he had filed a notice of recurrence (Form 

CA-2a),

4 and that his claim would now be formally adjudicated. It advised him of the deficiencies 

of his claim and requested additional factual and medical evidence. OWCP afforded appellant 30 

days to provide the necessary factual information and medical evidence. 

In an October 23, 2019 note, Dr. Cameron Best, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

advised that appellant was unable to work until his electromyography (EMG) study. 

By decision dated November 27, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It accepted that 

the July 9, 2019 incident occurred as alleged and that left shoulder and cervical conditions had 

been diagnosed, however, it denied his claim finding that he had failed to establish that his medical 

conditions were causally related to the accepted employment incident. 

Appellant subsequently submitted diagnostic testing reports. A July 12, 2019 left shoulder 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan revealed focal cortical irregularity of the acromion. A 

July 17, 2019 left shoulder x-ray examination report showed normal shoulder alignment and mild 

acromioclavicular degenerative changes. An October 17, 2019 cervical spine MRI scan 

demonstrated severe left foraminal stenosis at the C4-5 and C5-6 levels. An October 17, 2019 left 

shoulder MRI scan revealed marked supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendinosis, multifoca l labral 

tearing, moderate acromioclavicular (AC) joint degenerative change with ganglion cyst formation, 

and mild teres minor atrophy.

3 Docket No. 20-1486 (issued March 16, 2021).

4 On October 10, 2019 appellant filed a recurrence claim for disability from work commencing October 9, 2019 

due to his July 9, 2019 employment injury. 
3

In reports dated July 9 and 12, 2019, Dr. Catania noted that appellant was reevaluated for 

his injuries of left shoulder strain and left thoracic muscle spasm since July 8, 2019. She provided 

examination findings and noted diagnosis of left shoulder impingement syndrome, left shoulder 

muscle spasm, left shoulder acute pain, left shoulder strain, paresthesia and pain of the left 

extremity, and peripheral fatigue. 

In a July 17, 2019 report, Dr. Jonathan E. Campbell, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

recounted appellant’s complaints of left shoulder pain and numbness. He conducted an 

examination and diagnosed left forearm and hand numbness with possible ulnar neuritis. 

In reports dated October 14 and 21, 2019, Dr. David K. DeDianous, Board-certified in 

physical medicine and rehabilitation, recounted appellant’s symptoms of middle back and left 

shoulder pain. He provided examination findings and diagnosed shoulder pain, left arm 

paresthesia, tendinitis, and cervical pain and radiculopathy.

In a November 11, 2019 letter, Dr. R.J. Hammett, a chiropractor, indicated that he was 

treating appellant for injuries sustained at work. Appellant submitted additional chiropractic 

treatment notes dated October 29 through November 19, 2019.

On February 18, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration. 

In a December 3, 2019 letter, Dr. Hammett discussed appellant’s examination findings and 

noted that a cervical spine x-ray evaluation revealed loss of cervical lordosis, degenerative disc 

spaces at C5-6 with osteophytic spurring, and flexion malposition at C5 and C6. He diagnosed 

vertebral subluxation complexes of C1 and C5 with a loss of cervical lordosis, and cervical 

degenerative changes. In an undated addendum letter, Dr. Hammett noted that the injury was 

initially caused on July 9, 2019 when lifting an LLV door onto sawhorses and flipping them over. 

By decision dated May 6, 2020, OWCP denied modification of November 27, 2019 

decision.

Appellant, through counsel, appealed to the Board. By decision dated March 16, 2021, the 

Board affirmed OWCP’s May 6, 2020 decision.5

On April 13, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration.6

In an undated addendum letter, Dr. Hammett indicated that he was clarifying his previous 

October 20 and December 3, 2019 reports and letters. He noted that appellant first presented in 

his office complaining of mid-back and neck pain radiating into his hands with numbness and 

tingling in the radial nerve dermatome. Dr. Hammett opined that the injury was initially caused 

5

Supra note 3. 

6 Although counsel claimed to be filing a request for reconsideration from the Board’s March16, 2021 decision, 

OWCP is not authorized to review Board decisions. The decisions and orders of the Board are final as to the subject 

matter appealed and such decisions and orders are not subject to review, except by the Board. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.6(d). Although the March 16, 2021 Board decision was the last merit decision, the May 6, 2020 OWCP decision 

is the appropriate subject of possible modification by OWCP.
4

on July 9, 2019 when appellant lifted an LLV door at work. He recounted that appellant had 

informed him that this particular job was heavy and awkward because of the weight and angles 

that the doors have to be flipped. 

By decision dated June 22, 2021, OWCP denied modification of the May 6, 2020 decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA7 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,8that 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.9 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.10

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

performance of duty, OWCP must first determine whether fact of injury has been established.11 

There are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. 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 evidence, in the 

form of probative medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.12 

To establish causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant disability 

claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit rationalized medical 

opinion evidence.13 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 

7

Supra note 2.

8 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

9 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); 

James E.Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

10 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); 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).

11 D.B., Docket No. 18-1348 (issued January 4, 2019); S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007).

12 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); David 

Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

13 S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); S.A., Docket No. 18-0399 (issued October 16, 2018); see 

also RobertG. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).
5

by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and 

the specific employment factor(s) identified by the employee.14 

ANALYSIS

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

conditions causally related to the accepted July 9, 2019 employment incident.

Appellant submitted an addendum letter to the prior reports of Dr. Hammett, a chiropractor,

who indicated that he was treating appellant for complaints of mid-back and neck pain radiating 

into his hands with numbness and tingling in the radial nerve dermatome. He opined that 

appellant’s injury was initially caused on July 9, 2019 when he lifted an LLV door at work. Under 

FECA, the term physician includes chiropractors only to the extent that their reimbursable services 

are limited to treatment consisting of manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation as 

demonstrated by x-ray to exist.

15

 The Board finds that Dr. Hammett did treat appellant’s 

subluxation as demonstrated by x-ray to exist and has treated it with manual manipulation. 

Therefore, Dr. Hammet is considered a physician under FECA.16 However, he has not provided a 

rationalized medical opinion establishing causal relationship between the diagnosed subluxation 

and the accepted July 9, 2019 employment incident.17 Therefore, appellant has not met his burden 

of proof.

On appeal, counsel argues that Dr. Hammett provided clarification of his opinion on causal 

relationship and diagnosed subluxation based upon an x-ray scan. As explained above, however,

Dr. Hammett is not considered a physician as defined under FECA. 

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish causal relationship between 

appellant’s medical conditions and the accepted July 9, 2019 employment incident, 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.

14 C.F., Docket No. 18-0791 (issued February 26, 2019); M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); 

I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB345(1989).

15 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that the term physician includes chiropractors only if the treatment consists 

of manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation as demonstrated by x-ray to exist. 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). 

See J.D., Docket No. 19-1953 (issued January 11, 2021); T.T., Docket No. 18-0838 (issued September 19, 2019); 

Thomas W. Stevens, 50 ECAB 288 (1999).

16 See id. The Board notesthat it did not properly characterizeDr.Hammett as a physician on prior appeal; however, 

that was harmless error as he has not provided a rationalized medical opinion establishing causal relationship.

17 See supra note 13.
6

CONCLUSION

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

conditions causally related to the accepted July 9, 2019 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 22, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 24, 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