United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, DAYTON 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Dayton, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1981

Issued: May 11, 2020

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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 30, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal of the June 13, 2019 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 record provided to the Board includes evidence received after OWCP issued its June 13, 2019 decision.

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 bilateral shoulder 

injuries causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 12, 2019 appellant, then a 62-year-old expeditor, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained an injury to her left rotator cuff due to factors of 

her federal employment. She noted that she first became aware of her condition and realized it 

was caused or aggravated by her federal employment on March 6, 2019. Appellant explained that 

she had been an expeditor for 27 years, which required her to perform a significant amount of 

pushing and pulling of equipment, which could weigh anywhere from 230 to 800 pounds. She 

stopped work on March 6, 2019 and returned the next day. 

In an April 4, 2019 letter, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim. It 

provided that she had been employed with the employing establishment for 34 years and that 

employees are reminded all the time that it is unsafe to pull the equipment. The employing 

establishment reasoned that because appellant had been employed for 34 years, she “should have 

known better,” and therefore had not established fact of injury.

In a development letter dated April 8, 2019, OWCP informed appellant that she had not 

submitted evidence to establish that she experienced the employment factors alleged to have 

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

her claim and attached a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP also requested a narrative 

medical report from her physician, providing a firm diagnosis of a condition and a rationalized 

opinion on how appellant’s employment duties caused or aggravated her condition. It afforded 

him 30 days to provide the necessary information. 

In a separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested that the employing 

establishment provide additional information regarding appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

including comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding the accuracy of her statements, a 

description of the tasks she performed which required physical exertion, and a description of 

precautions taken to minimize effects of the employment activities. It afforded the employing 

establishment 30 days to submit the requested information. 

In a May 18, 2018 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Isaac Corney, Board-certified in 

family medicine, provided work restrictions for appellant related to a bilateral hernia she sustained 

due to repetitive lifting.

In an April 22, 2019 progress note, Dr. James Klosterman, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted that appellant presented with bilateral shoulder pain, which she alleged began last 

year and was caused by the pushing and pulling work she performs at her job. On review of x-rays 

of appellant’s shoulders, he found no acute bony abnormalities. Dr. Klosterman diagnosed 

shoulder impingement syndrome of the left and right shoulders and recommended that she undergo 

a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan for further evaluation. 
3

In response to OWCP’s questionnaire, appellant submitted an April 23, 2019 statement in 

which she detailed the related employment activities as moving equipment off of trucks daily, two 

or three times a week. She provided that the weight of the equipment she pushes and pulls varies 

depending on the amount of mail she is required to move. Appellant also claimed that she was 

never instructed or given written procedures instructing her to never pull the equipment. She 

further asserted that she had observed other employees and supervisors pulling the equipment on 

a daily basis. 

Appellant also provided position descriptions for her duties as a general expeditor and for 

a mail handler assistant. 

By decision dated June 13, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that the evidence of record failed to establish that her diagnosed condition was causally 

related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. 

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, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period of FECA,3that 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 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 of 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.6

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.7 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors must be based on a 

 

3 S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

4

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 K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

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

6 R.G., Docket No. 19-0233 (issued July 16, 2019). See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Ruby I. 

Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).

7 T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).
4

complete factual and medical background.8 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 appellant’s 

specific employment factors.9

ANALYSIS

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

shoulder injuries causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

Dr. Klosterman’s noted in an April 22, 2019 progress note that appellant was experiencing 

bilateral shoulder pain that began a year prior and was caused by the pushing and pulling she 

performed at work. He diagnosed shoulder impingement syndrome of the left and right shoulders 

and recommended she undergo an MRI for further evaluation. Although his notes generally 

supported causal relationship between appellant’s shoulder impingements and the accepted factors 

of her federal employment, Dr. Klosterman did not provide sufficient rationale explaining these 

conclusions. Without explaining how the repetitive movements involved in appellant’s 

employment duties caused or contributed to her injuries, his opinion is of limited probative value.10 

Further, Dr. Klosterman’s conclusions are largely based on appellant’s opinion as to what caused 

her injuries, rather than by his independent analysis of the cause of her conditions.11 A mere

conclusion without the necessary rationale explaining how and why the physician believes that a 

claimant’s accepted employment factors resulted in the diagnosed condition is insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof.12 Accordingly, the Board finds that Dr. Klosterman’s progress notes 

are of little probative value on the issue of causal relationship.

The remaining medical evidence consists of a May 18, 2018 Form CA-17 from Dr. Corney 

concerning a bilateral hernia condition. As this evidence addresses a condition unrelated to 

appellant’s shoulder conditions, the Board finds that Dr. Corney’s Form CA-17 is of no probative 

value on the issue of causal relationship between appellant’s shoulder conditions and her accepted 

employment factors.

As there is no rationalized medical evidence of record explaining how appellant’s 

employment duties caused or aggravated her shoulder impingement syndrome, appellant has not 

met her burden of proof to establish that her condition is causally related to the accepted factors of 

her federal employment.

 

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

9

Id.; Victor J. Woodhams, supra note 6.

10 See A.P., Docket No. 19-0224 (issued July 11, 2019).

11 See D.L., Docket No. 15-0866 (issued November 23, 2015); J.S., Docket No. 14-0818 (issued August 7, 2014).

12 See Y.T., Docket No. 17-1559 (issued March 20, 2018).
5

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 

shoulder injuries causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 13, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 11, 2020

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