United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

I.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NORFOLK 

NAVAL SHIPYARD, Portsmouth, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0216

Issued: August 15, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, 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 November 5, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

September 19, 2019 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).2 

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 The Board notes that following the September 19, 2019decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board has jurisdiction to consider the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a right knee 

condition causally related to the accepted October 26, 2017 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 1, 2017 appellant, then a 60-year-old rigger, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on October 26, 2017 he twisted his right knee when he stepped out of 

an employing establishment shuttle van while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on 

October 26, 2017.

On October 26 2017 Dr. Arthur Wardell, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, noted that 

appellant was using a right wrist brace and that he was experiencing aching stiffness in his left 

ankle. He diagnosed right wrist sprain, left ankle sprain, and sprain of the sacroiliac joint. 

On October 30, 2017 Dr. Wardell completed a duty status report (Form CA-17) wherein 

he provided work restrictions due to appellant’s thigh, knee, leg, ankle, and foot injuries, and also 

completed an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20). He diagnosed right knee sprain in both 

form reports and checked a box marked “Yes” on the Form CA-20 indicating that he believed that 

this condition was caused or aggravated by the employment activity of stepping out of a shuttle 

van at work and hyperextending the right knee. Dr. Wardell found that appellant was totally 

disabled.

In a November 9, 2017 development letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of 

his claim, requested additional factual and medical evidence, and provided a questionnaire for his 

completion. In a separate letter of even date, it requested additional information from the 

employing establishment. OWCP afforded both parties 30 days to provide the requested evidence.

On November 27, 2017 appellant responded to the development questionnaire and 

indicated that he had injured his right knee stepping off the employing establishment shuttle van

while at work. He also provided additional medical evidence. On October 27, 2017 Dr. Wardell

reported that appellant had injured his right knee at work on October 26, 2017 when he 

hyperextended it stepping out of an employing establishment shuttle van. He noted that following 

the employment incident he had experienced pain, stiffness, and aching in his knee. Dr. Wardell 

diagnosed right knee sprain and found that appellant was partially disabled.

In an October 30, 2017 treatment note, Dr. Wardell opined that appellant was totally 

disabled due to his right knee sprain. He recommended physical therapy. Dr. Wardell completed 

Form CA-17 and CA-20 reports on November 28, 2017 diagnosing right knee sprain and finding 

that he was disabled. He indicated by checking a box marked “Yes” on the Form CA-20 that 

3

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
3

appellant’s condition was caused or aggravated by the employment activity of stepping out of the 

employing establishment shuttle and hyperextending his right knee.

By decision dated December 13, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the diagnosed 

conditions are causally related to the accepted October 26, 2017 employment incident.

On January 11, 2018 appellant, through then-counsel, requested an oral hearing before a

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. The oral hearing took place on 

June 8, 2018.

OWCP continued to receive medical evidence. Dr. Wardell provided a summary of his 

treatment notes from October 27 through December 27, 2017 in which he reported that appellant 

injured his right knee at work on October 26, 2017 when he hyperextended it stepping out of an 

employing establishment shuttle van and diagnosed right knee sprain. On December 27, 2017 he 

again diagnosed right knee sprain. In a January 3, 2018 note, Dr. Wardell reported that on 

October 26, 2017 appellant informed him that he had injured his right knee. On that date, he had 

examined him for previously accepted employment injuries of right wrist sprain and lumbar 

radiculopathy.4 Dr. Wardell explained that it was not normal procedure for him to place comments 

in the notes regarding other body areas not implicated by the accepted work injury. He reported 

significant objective findings including flexion contracture of the knee, crepitus and snapping on 

circumduction over the suprapatellar region. Dr. Wardell recommended a magnetic resonance 

imaging (MRI) scan of the right knee. He completed form reports on January 26 and February 26, 

2018 diagnosing right knee sprain and finding that appellant was totally disabled.

On January 23, 2018 appellant underwent a right knee MRI scan. In a June 13, 2018 report,

Dr. Wardell found that the MRI scan demonstrated objective evidence of articular cartilage 

damage of the medial femoral condyle. He opined that this finding was consistent with a 

hyperextension injury to the right knee as the medial femoral condyle was located at the distal end 

of the femur and articulated with the tibia. Dr. Wardell found that if the knee is hyperextended the 

anterior edge of the tibia will impact against the medial femoral condyle causing articular cartilage 

damage as noted in appellant’s MRI scan. He concluded that to a reasonable degree of medical 

certainty, the mechanism of injury, hyperextension of the right knee, was consistent with the 

objective evidence on MRI scan of medial femoral condyle injury.

By decision dated July 19, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

December 13, 2017 decision.

On July 10, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and provided 

additional medical evidence. In a July 2, 2019 report, Dr. Wardell included his history of injury 

on October 26, 2017 when he hyperextended his right knee at work stepping of an employing 

establishment shuttle van. He opined that this hyperextension injury impacted the medial femoral 

condyle against the medial tibia resulting in articular cartilage damage of the medial femoral 

4

In OWCP File No. xxxxxx909, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for right wrist sprain, left hip, thigh, foot, and 

ankle sprains, left sacroiliac ligament sprain, and post-traumatic stress disorder due to an accepted May 26, 2015

employment injury. 
4

condyle which was consistent with appellant’s symptoms and his course of medical treatment. 

Dr. Wardell diagnosed permanent aggravation of chondromalacia of the medical femoral condyle 

as a result of the accepted employment incident. He noted that he had relatively asymptomatic 

chondromalacia of the right knee prior to October 26, 2017 and that the hyperextension injury with 

impact of the medial femoral condyle of the femur against the medial tibia caused the cartilage in 

between the bones to be squeezed resulting in additional damage to the cartilage and increased 

symptoms. Dr. Wardell opined that the mechanism of injury on October 26, 2017 was competent 

to produce an aggravation of the underlying condition, and that he believed that this had occurred, 

rather than the MRI scan merely demonstrating appellant’s preexisting condition without impact 

of the accepted employment incident.

By decision dated September 19, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision.5

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA6 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,7that 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.8 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.9

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.10

5 The case record initially transmitted to the Board did not include Dr.Wardell’s October 26, 2017 report. On 

March 12, 2021 the Board issued an Order to Complete Record Within 30 Days, Docket No. 20-0216 (issued 

March 12, 2021). OWCP complied with this order on March 1, 2022 providing the Board with a copy of the

October 26, 2017 report and the completed record.

6

Supra note 3.

7 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued December 13, 2019); 

Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

8 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).

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

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

10 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).
5

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

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

identified by the employee.12

ANALYSIS

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

In his reports dated June 13, 2018 and July 2, 2019, Dr. Wardell opined that appellant’s 

underlying right knee condition of asymptomatic chondromalacia was aggravated by his 

October 26, 2017 employment incident of hyperextension of the right knee resulting in further 

articular cartilage damage of the medial femoral condyle. He explained how the hyperextension 

of his right knee with impact of the medial femoral condyle of the femur against the medial tibia 

caused the cartilage in between the bones to be squeezed which resulted in additional damage to 

the cartilage and increased symptoms of the medial femoral condyle of the femur and the medial 

tibia as noted in appellant’s MRI scan.

Dr. Wardell’s reports suggest a pathophysiological explanation as to how appellant’s

hyperextension injury of the right knee resulted in additional damage of his preexisting 

asymptomatic chondromalacia of the right knee. Accordingly, while these reports from

Dr. Wardell are not fully rationalized, they are sufficient to require further development of 

appellant’s claim.13

It is well established that proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and, while 

appellant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares 

responsibility in the development of the evidence.14 OWCP has an obligation to see that justice is 

done.15

On remand OWCP shall prepare a statement of accepted facts and obtain a rationalized 

opinion from a physician in the appropriate field of medicine as to whether the accepted 

11 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).

12 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).

13 S.R., Docket No. 20-0313 (issued April11, 2022); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020); D.S.,

Docket No. 17-1359 (issued May 3, 2019); X.V., Docket No. 18-1360 (issued April12, 2019); C.M., Docket No. 17-

1977 (issued January 29, 2019); WilliamJ. Cantrell, 34 ECAB 1223 (1983).

14 Id.; A.P., Docket No. 17-0813 (issued January 3, 2018); Jimmy A. Hammons, 51 ECAB 219, 223 (1999).

15 B.C., Docket No. 15-1853 (issued January 19, 2016); E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 2010); 

John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).
6

employment incident caused, contributed to, or aggravated the diagnosed right knee condition.16 

If the physician opines that the diagnosed conditions are not causally related, he or she must 

explain with rationale how or why their opinion differs from that of Dr. Wardell. After this and 

other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 19, 2019 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: August 15, 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

16 M.S.,Docket No. 20-1095 (issued March 29, 2022); C.G.,Docket No. 20-1121 (issued February 11, 2021); A.G.,

Docket No. 20-0454 (issued October 29, 2020).