United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, LUDLAM BRANCH, 

Miami, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1197

Issued: January 14, 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 2, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 19, 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.3

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.

3 The Board notes that, following the July 19, 2021 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to the Board. 

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 established a right knee condition causally related to the 

accepted December 30, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 11, 2021 appellant, then a 54-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 30, 2020 she injured her right knee when she 

entangled her foot in a mail strap and fell while in the performance of duty. She reported that she 

could hardly walk because of the pain and swelling in her right knee. On the reverse side of the 

claim form the employing establishment acknowledged that appellant was injured while in the 

performance of duty. Appellant stopped work on December 31, 2020.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a December 30, 2020 statement relating her 

history of injury.

In an emergency department note of even date, Drs. Jessica Quinones De Echegaray and 

Richard Bocchio, both Board-certified physicians specializing in emergency medicine, diagnosed 

a knee contusion and advised that appellant could return to work in three days. A work excuse 

note of even date signed by Dr. Bocchio related that appellant was seen on December 30, 2020 

and could return to work on January 3, 2021, as tolerated with her pain.

In a development letter dated January 20, 2021, OWCP advised appellant of the factual 

and medical deficiencies of her claim. It asked her to complete a questionnaire to provide further 

details regarding the circumstances of her claimed injury and requested a narrative medical report 

from her treating physician, which contained a detailed description of findings and diagnoses, 

explaining how her work activities caused, contributed to, or aggravated her medical condition. 

OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

In a January 14, 2021 medical report, Dr. Arturo Corces, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, related that appellant fell at work on December 30, 2020 and experienced constant pain, 

mostly in the medial joint line, as well as popping and clicking. He noted that appellant failed all 

conservative treatment. An examination of appellant’s right knee revealed mild effusion, pain 

with flexion past 90 degrees, and significant medial joint line tenderness. X-rays of the right knee 

revealed no evidence of fracture, bone lesions, deformity, or arthritic change. Dr. Corces 

diagnosed pain in the right knee and noted that the physical examination was consistent with a 

meniscal tear. In a work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c) and duty status report (Form CA17) of even date, he indicated that appellant was unable to work. On the Form CA-17 Dr. Corces

also diagnosed right knee pain.

On February 4, 2021 Dr. Corces again related appellant’s history of injury and symptoms. 

He diagnosed a complex tear of the lateral meniscus and noted an impression of a medial meniscal 

tear. Dr. Corces also reported that appellant had arthritic changes in her knee, but explained that 

her symptoms seemed more related to the meniscal pathology. In a Form OWCP-5c of even date, 

he indicated that appellant was unable to work and diagnosed a lateral meniscus tear. Dr. Corces

advised that appellant needed a right knee arthroscopy and should use crutches.
3

Appellant responded to OWCP’s development questionnaire on February 8, 2021, relating 

her history of injury. She reported that her employing establishment supervisor, T.M., and other 

coworkers witnessed the incident, and T.M. executed an authorization for examination and/or 

treatment (Form CA-16). Appellant further reported that she could not continue working due to 

the pain and swelling in her right knee, so she went to the doctor with the Form CA-16. The doctor 

told her she could return to work on January 3, 2021, as tolerated with her pain. Appellant was

advised that she would need a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and should follow up with 

an orthopedist if the pain persisted. She noted that she reported all of this to her supervisor on 

January 4, 2021. Appellant indicated that she had no prior injuries to her right knee. 

OWCP also received four witness statements from appellant’s coworkers corroborating 

appellant’s account of the claimed December 30, 2020 employment incident.

By decision dated February 22, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in connection 

with the accepted December 30, 2020 employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the 

requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

On March 2, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

Appellant subsequently submitted a January 27, 2021 MRI scan for her right knee that 

revealed a horizontal cleavage tear of the anterior horn and anterior mid-body of the lateral 

meniscus of indeterminate age, chondromalacia along the medial patellar facet, apex, and trochlear 

groove of the femur of indeterminate age, mild osteoarthritis in the medial femorotibial 

compartment with chondromalacia of indeterminate age, slight anterior translation of the tibia, and 

mild marrow edema along the posterior lateral tibial plateau.

During the telephonic hearing held before an OWCP hearing representative on May 26, 

2021, appellant testified that she was diagnosed with a meniscal tear and that she needed surgery. 

She explained that she had been off work since the accepted December 30, 2020 employment 

incident and had not experienced any further injury to her right knee since that date. The hearing 

representative advised appellant of the type of medical evidence necessary to establish her claim

and held the case record open for 30 days for the submission of additional evidence. OWCP did 

not receive any further evidence.

By decision dated July 19, 2021, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the February 22, 

2021 decision, as modified, finding that the evidence of record contained a medical diagnosis. The 

claim remained denied, however, as the evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal 

relationship between appellant’s diagnosed condition and the accepted December 30, 2020 

employment incident.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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 

4

Supra note 2.
4

United States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applic able 

time limitation period of FECA,5that 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 an employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of 

duty, OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Fact of injury 

consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The first 

component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that allegedly 

occurred.8 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury.9

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

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence.10 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.11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a right knee 

condition causally related to the accepted December 30, 2020 employment incident.

In a January 14, 2021 medical report, Dr. Corces related that appellant fell at work and 

diagnosed pain in the right knee and a probable meniscal tear. On February 4, 2021 he again 

related appellant’s history of injury and diagnosed a complex tear of the lateral meniscus. 

Dr. Corces also reported that appellant had arthritic changes in her knee, but explained that her 

symptoms seemed more related to the meniscal pathology. Although he suggested a work-related 

cause for appellant’s knee condition, he did not provide a rationalized medical opinion relating the 

specific diagnosed condition to the employment incident. The Board has held that a report is of 

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

5

S.S., Docket No. 19-1815 (issued June26, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

6 M.H., Docket No. 19-0930 (issued June 17, 2020); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 

312 (1988).

7

S.A., Docket No. 19-1221 (issued June 9, 2020);L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014);DeloresC. 

Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

8 R.K., Docket No. 19-0904 (issued April10, 2020); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9 Y.D., Docket No. 19-1200 (issued April6, 2020); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

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

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

11 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

explaining how an employment activity could have caused or aggravated a medical condition. 12 

Therefore, these reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s traumatic injury claim.

In a December 30, 2020 emergency department note, Drs. Quinones De Echegaray and 

Bocchio diagnosed a knee contusion and advised that appellant could return to work in three days. 

In a work excuse note of even date, Dr. Bocchio advised that appellant could return to work on 

January 3, 2021. However, neither note discussed the accepted December 30, 2020 employment 

incident or offered an opinion on causal relationship. 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.13 For this reason, this medical evidence is insufficient to 

meet appellant’s burden of proof.

Similarly, in a Form OWCP-5c and Form CA-17 dated January 14, 2021, as well as, in a 

Form OWCP-5c dated February 4, 2021, Dr. Corces indicated that appellant was unable to return 

to work due to her knee condition. However, as above, he did not discuss the accepted 

December 30, 2020 employment incident or offer an opinion on causal relationship. Thus,

Dr. Corces’ medical evidence is also insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.14

The remaining medical evidence consisted of a January 27, 2021 MRI scan. The Board 

has held, however, that diagnostic testing reports, standing alone, lack probative value on the issue 

of causal relationship as they do not address the relationship between the accepted employment 

factors and a diagnosed condition.15 For this reason, this evidence is also insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof.

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing that her right 

knee meniscal tear is causally related to the accepted December 30, 2020 employment incident, 

the Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof to establish her claim.

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 her burden of proof to establish a right knee 

condition causally related to the accepted December 30, 2020 employment incident.

12 Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017).

13 S.J., Docket No. 19-0696 (issued August23, 2019); M.C., Docket No. 18-0951 (issued January 7, 2019); L.B., 

Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

14 Id. 

15 W.M.,Docket No. 19-1853 (issued May 13, 2020); L.F., Docket No. 19-1905 (issued April10, 2020).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 19, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 14, 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