United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, EASTPORT POST 

OFFICE, Annapolis, MD, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0210

Issued: July 29, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 23, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an 

October 29, 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 her burden of proof to establish a medical condition 

causally related to the accepted August 10, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 20, 2020 appellant, then a 22-year-old postal collection and delivery person, 

filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 10, 2020 she sustained right 

shoulder and neck pain while carrying mail in the performance of duty.

In an August 21, 2020 development letter, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish her claim. It informed her of the type of factual and medical 

evidence necessary to establish her claim and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP

afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

An August 12, 2020 hospital record noted that appellant was seen by clinicians that day 

and was released to return to work on August 15, 2020.

In prescription slips dated August 17, 24 and September 4, 2020, Dr. Aditya Chopra, an 

internist, prescribed bedrest.

In visit notes dated August 17, 2020, Nicholas A. Wolf, a certified registered nurse 

practitioner, noted that appellant was seen for complaints of right shoulder/upper arm and right 

neck pain. He noted an assessment of neck pain and neuropathy. 

Mr. Wolf, in visit notes dated August 24, 2020, noted that appellant was seen in follow-up 

for neck pain complaints. Under assessment, he noted neck pain, muscle spasm, and neuropathy. 

In visit notes dated August 27, 2020, Mr. Wolf reported that appellant was seen for complaints of 

right shoulder pain. Under assessment, he noted muscle spasm and right shoulder and neck pain. 

Mr. Wolf recommended cervical and right shoulder magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans.

On August 28, 2020 OWCP received an undated attending physician’s report (Form CA20), wherein Mr. Wolfe noted that appellant injured her neck and shoulder while carrying a bag of 

mail. Mr. Wolf diagnosed pain of unknown etiology pending MRI scans. He found appellant 

totally disabled from work commencing August 10, 2020. 

In visit notes dated August 31, September 4, 11 and 16, 2020, Mr. Wolf detailed 

examination findings. Diagnoses included muscle spasm, right shoulder pain and neck pain, 

radiculopathy, disc protrusion, tendinosis, and bulging disc.

A September 3, 2020 MRI scan of appellant’s right shoulder demonstrated no labral or 

capsular abnormality, mild infraspinatus tendinosis, and adequate subacromial space. Appellant’s

cervical MRI scan of even date demonstrated C4-5 left paracentral radial annular tear and disc 

protrusion upon the thecal sac and C5-6 and C6-7 central radial annular tear and disc protrusion 

upon the thecal sac. 
3

Dr. Chopra, in a September 18, 2020 report, detailed appellant’s history of medical 

treatment. He noted that appellant was seen on August 17, 2020 for a right shoulder and neck 

injury she sustained on August 10, 2020, which she attributed to carrying a mailbag. Dr. Chopra’s 

review of appellant’s cervical MRI scan revealed tears and disc protrusion. He noted a diagnosis 

of tendinosis. As to the cause of the tendinosis, Dr. Chopra explained that it was possible that 

heavy lifting caused the muscle strain and protruding disc.

In a September 21, 2020 report, Dr. Emeka Nwodim, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

related appellant’s physical examination findings and noted that her symptoms began at work on 

August 10, 2020. He diagnosed neck pain, cervicalgia, and right shoulder joint pain.

By decision dated September 30, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed condition causally related to 

the accepted August 10, 2020 employment incident. 

OWCP continued to receive medical evidence.

Mr. Wolf, in an August 17, 2020 prescription slip, prescribed bedrest for the period 

August 17 to 24, 2020.

An August 17, 2020 duty status report (Form CA-17), from Dr. Stephen D. Brown, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, noted that on August 10, 2020 appellant developed pain in her 

shoulder while carrying mail. Diagnoses due to injury included muscle spasm and pain of 

unknown etiology. 

In a September 29, 2020 report, Dr. Brown noted that appellant was seen for complaints of 

bilateral shoulder and neck pain which appellant had attributed to carrying mail on 

August 10, 2020. On physical examination, Dr. Brown reported bilateral bicipital grove 

tenderness; and positive right Hawkins and O’Brien’s tests. He reviewed appellant’s right

shoulder and cervical spine MRI scans and diagnosed prolapsed cervical intervertebral disc, 

bilateral shoulder impingement syndrome, and right shoulder joint superior glenoid labrum injury. 

Dr. Brown, in a progress note dated October 20, 2020, reported that appellant was seen for 

bilateral shoulder pain, which was aggravated by pushing, pulling, and lifting. He related 

appellant’s physical examination findings, which were unchanged from his prior report. 

Dr. Brown diagnosed prolapsed cervical intervertebral disc, bilateral right shoulder impingement 

syndrome, and right shoulder joint superior glenoid labrum injury. He placed appellant off work 

for three weeks and attributed her right shoulder injury to her postal work.

In Form CA-17 dated November 4, 2020, Dr. Brown noted an injury date of August 10,

2020 and diagnoses of right shoulder impingement syndrome and prolapsed cervical disc due to 

the injury. He found appellant disabled from work. 

In a November 5, 2020 progress note, Dr. Brown reported that appellant was seen for right 

shoulder pain which was caused by lifting. He noted an injury date of August 10, 2020. Physical 

examination findings were unchanged. Dr. Brown diagnosed prolapsed cervical intervertebral 

disc displacement, bilateral shoulder region impingement syndrome, and bilateral biceps 

tendinitis. 
4

On November 11, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration.

In a report dated December 4, 2020, Dr Brown diagnosed bilateral rotator cuff tendinitis. 

He noted that appellant reported that her pain was attributed to carrying her mailbag. Dr. Brown 

concluded that appellant’s pain was causally related to her federal employment duties based on 

her symptoms, physical examination, and injury history. 

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

On July 15, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted 

additional evidence. 

Dr. Brown, in an undated report, provided diagnostic test findings. He reported that a 

May 11, 2021 electromyogram/nerve conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) study, demonstrated right 

carpal tunnel syndrome and mild elbow neuropathy and no evidence of cervical radiculopathy. 

Dr. Brown concluded that appellant sustained cervical and right shoulder injuries due to an 

August 10, 2020 work incident. 

By decision dated July 26, 2021, OWCP denied modification. 

On September 20, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and 

submitted additional evidence. 

In an undated report, Dr. Brown noted that appellant, while carrying mail on August 10, 

2020, felt right shoulder/neck area discomfort. Appellant noted that her satchel strap would get 

uncomfortable being on the shoulder for hours. She also related that the mail volume was high 

that day so that she placed both mail and packages into her satchel. The following day appellant 

stated that she could barely move her neck to the right. Dr. Brown reported that it was not 

uncommon for cervical and shoulder pathology to result from routine work demands. He further

explained that the weight of the heavy satchel placed excess pressure on the cervical spine and 

trapezius. This in turn placed increased pressure on the anterior shoulder capsule and increased 

anterior displacement of the humeral head on external rotation and glenoid due to the position of 

the satchel when it is thrown onto the shoulder. The end result was labral tears and deterioration 

from the undue anterior translocation and subluxation of the humeral head.

Appellant also submitted a January 25, 2021 initial evaluation/plan of care by Stephen 

Sullivan, a physician assistant, noting an injury date of August 10, 2020 and primary/rehabilitation 

diagnoses of right cervical radiculopathy, bilateral shoulder pain, and generalized weakness. 

Mr. Sullivan reported that appellant was injured at work in August. He prescribed physical therapy 

three times a week for six weeks. 

By decision dated October 18, 2021, OWCP denied modification. 

On October 22, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration, noting that the 

definition of a traumatic injury doesinclude injuries that occurred within a single shift or workday. 

She asserted that Dr. Brown’s report provided a biomechanical explanation as to how carrying a 

mailbag on August 10,2020 caused appellant’s neck and shoulder conditions. 
5

By decision dated October 29, 2021, OWCP denied modification.

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,

3

that 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 

employment incident at the time and 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

ANALYSIS

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

3 D.A., Docket No. 21-0478 (issued October 14, 2021); 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); JoeD. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

4 D.A., id.; 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 August 31, 2021); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016);

L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February7, 2014);DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

6 D.A., supra note 4; 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 D.A., 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).

8 D.A., 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).
6

In a September 29, 2020 report, Dr. Brown noted history of injury, provided examination 

findings and diagnosed prolapsed cervical intervertebral disc, bilateral shoulder impingement 

syndrome, and right shoulder joint superior glenoid labrum injury. In a report received on 

September 20, 2021, he opined that the accepted August 10, 2020 employment incident caused 

appellant’s humeral head translocation and subluxation and labral tears and deterioration from 

carrying mail. Dr. Brown explained that the mechanism of injury was the excess pressure placed 

on the cervical spine and trapezius from the heavy satchel which caused increased pressure on the 

anterior shoulder capsule and increased anterior displacement of the humeral head on external 

rotation and glenoid resulting labral tears and deterioration from the undue anterior translocation 

and subluxation of the humeral head. He noted that the following day appellant could barely move 

her neck to the right. Dr. Brown concluded it was not uncommon for cervical and spinal pathology 

to result from routine work demands.

The Board finds that, while the report from Dr. Brown was not fully rationalized, it did 

provide a physiologic medical explanation indicating that appellant sustained a prolapsed cervical 

intervertebral disc, bilateral shoulder impingement syndrome, and right shoulder joint superior 

glenoid labrum injury conditions on August 10, 2020. Although the report is insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof to establish the claim, it raises an uncontroverted inference between 

appellant’s accepted conditions and August 10, 2020 incident and, thus, it is sufficient to require 

OWCP to further develop the medical evidence.9 

Proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature, nor is OWCP a disinterested arbiter. 

While it is appellant’s burden of proof to establish the claim, OWCP shares responsibility in the 

development of the evidence.10 It has the obligation to see that justice is done.11

The Board will, therefore, remand the case to OWCP for further development of the 

medical evidence. On remand, OWCP shall refer appellant, a statement of accepted facts, and the 

medical evidence of record to a physician in the appropriate field of medicine. The chosen 

physician shall provide a rationalized opinion on whether the diagnosed conditions are causally 

related to the accepted employment incident. If the physician opines that the diagnosed conditions 

are not causally related, he or she must explain with rationale how or why his or her opinion differs 

from that of Dr. Brown. Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, 

OWCP shall issue a de novo decision on appellant’s claim.

CONCLUSION

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

9 M.R., Docket No. 20-0101 (issued September 14, 2021), Richard E. Simpson, 55 ECAB 490, 500 (2004); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354, 360 (1989).

10 Id.

11 Id.
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 29, 2021 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: July 29, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board