United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Melville, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0488

Issued: November 22, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 25, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 10, 2022 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish bilateral carpal 

tunnel syndrome (CTS) causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the November 10, 2022 merit decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 15, 2022 appellant, then a 42-year-old sales and service distribution associate, 

filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed bilateral CTS as a 

result of factors of herfederal employment, including repetitive movements,sorting and delivering 

mail, and typing. She noted that she first became aware of her condition and realized its 

relationship to her federal employment on November 8, 2021. Appellant did not stop work.

In an August 24, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

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

claim, and provided a questionnaire for completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit 

the requested evidence.

In a medical report dated August 26, 2022, Dr. Wayne Reizner, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, noted that appellant related complaints of right arm pain, which she attributed 

to sorting, computer use, and heavy lifting at work. He performed a physical examination of the 

upper extremities, which revealed positive Phalen’s test and Tinel’s sign at the carpal tunnel, 

bilaterally, and numbness in the median wrists, small fingers, and ulnar ring fingers. Dr. Reizner 

diagnosed bilateral CTS and cervical radiculopathy. He recommended that appellant undergo

electromyography and nerve conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) studies of the upper extremities,

and that she utilizes nighttime cockup wrist bracing and elbow extension bracing.

In a September 1, 2022 response to OWCP’s questionnaire, appellant indicated that she 

worked six to seven days per week, six to 10 hours per day, and her job duties included using a 

keyboard for typing to sell postage and stamps, enter international customs forms, order supplies, 

and check information. She noted that she also unloaded and distributed mail to carriers and to 

the sorting case, and delivered mail to the box section which involved repetitive grasping and fine 

manipulation. Appellant related that she began experiencing numbness, tingling, weakness, and 

stiffness in her hands and arms five years prior, which progressively worsened as she continued to 

work.

By decision dated November 10, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish bilateral CTS causally related to the 

accepted factors of her federal employment.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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,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 

3

Supra note 1.

4 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 
3

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 establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, an employee must submit the following: (1) a factual statement identifying 

employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence o f the 

disease or condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or 

condition for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the

diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the employee.7

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.8 The opinion of the physician must be based upon a complete factual 

and medical background, 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 

the specific employment incident.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish bilateral CTS

causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

In his August 26, 2022 report, Dr. Reizner noted appellant’s subjective complaints and 

physical examination findings and diagnosed bilateral CTS and cervical radiculopathy. He did 

not, however, provide an opinion on the cause of the 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. 10 Therefore, the Board finds 

that Dr. Reizner’s report is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish bilateral CTS causally related 

to the accepted factors of her federal employment, the Board finds that appellant has not met her

burden of proof.

5 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).

6 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 P.L., Docket No. 19-1750 (issued March 26, 2020); R.G., Docket No. 19-0233 (issued July 16, 2019); L.M., 

Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); Dolores C. Ellyett, id.

8

I.J., Docket No. 19-1343 (issued February 26, 2020); T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008); RobertG. Morris, 48 ECAB 

238 (1996).

9 D.C., Docket No. 19-1093 (issued June 25, 2020); see L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018).

10 See L.B., id.; D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
4

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 bilateral CTS 

causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 10, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: November 22, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board