United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

I.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, NEW JERSEY 

INTERNATIONAL & NATIONAL 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Jersey City, NJ,

Employer

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1210

Issued: December 29, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

James D. Muirhead, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 15, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 9, 2022 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 right shoulder 

condition causally related to the accepted December 14, 2019 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 14, 2019 appellant, then a 56-year-old clerk, filed a traumatic injury claim

(Form CA-1) alleging that on December 14, 2019 she injured her right shoulder while in the 

performance of duty. She stopped work on that date. 

In a report dated December 20, 2019, Judith Valera, a physician assistant, noted that 

appellant related a sudden onset of right shoulder pain while working on December 14, 2019. She 

performed a physical examination of the right shoulder, which revealed pain in the 

acromioclavicular (AC) joint and deltoid region. Ms. Valera diagnosed right shoulder pain and 

ordered an x-ray of the right shoulder.

In a note dated December 20, 2019, a healthcare provider with an illegible signature 

recommended that appellant remain off work from December 14 through 29, 2019 due to pain in 

the right shoulder.

In a note dated December 26, 2019, Dr. Anthony I. Parks, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, diagnosed right shoulder rotator cuff impingement and recommended that appellant

remain off work pending a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan.

A report of x-rays of the right shoulder dated December 27, 2019 revealed mild AC joint 

and glenohumeral joint arthropathy.

In an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated January 9, 2020, Dr. Parks 

diagnosed right shoulder pain and impingement. He checked a box marked “Yes” indicating that 

the conditions were caused or aggravated by an employment activity.

In a January 16, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence required and provided a 

questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence. 

OWCP thereafter received two undated statements by appellant, who indicated that on 

December 14, 2019 she was throwing packages overhead continuously into all-purpose containers 

(APCs). Appellant noted the packages weighed between 5 and 50 pounds. After filling five APCs, 

she felt pain in her right shoulder.

Dr. Parks, in a report dated December 26, 2019, noted that appellant related complaints of 

right shoulder pain, which she attributed to repetitively lifting boxes above shoulder height 

weighing more than 50 pounds each on December 14, 2019. He performed a physical examination

of the right shoulder, which revealed impingement and reduced range of motion and strength due 

to pain. Dr. Parks diagnosed right rotator cuff impingement syndrome and administered an 

injection to the right shoulder.
3

In a report dated January 6, 2020, Dr. Parks noted that appellant continued to report pain 

in the right shoulder, which was exacerbated by lifting and movement. He diagnosed rotator cuff 

impingement syndrome of the right shoulder. In a Form CA-20 of even date, Dr. Parks checked a 

box marked “Yes” indicating that appellant’s condition was caused or aggravated by an 

employment activity.

In a report dated January 16, 2020, Dr. Jonathan Gamss, a Board-certified internal and 

emergency medicine specialist, noted that appellant related a history of intermittent right shoulder 

pain since December 14, 2019, which had worsened the previous night. He performed a physical 

examination, which revealed tenderness over the rotator cuff area.

In CA-20 forms dated January 5 and 29 and February 5 and 19, 2020, Dr. Parks diagnosed 

work-related right shoulder pain and impingement. 

By decision dated February 19, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish a causal relationship between her diagnosed right 

shoulder conditions and the accepted December 14, 2019 employment incident. 

On March 12, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

OWCP thereafter received additional nursing and triage notes associated with appellant’s 

January 16, 2020 emergency room visit.

A hearing was held on June 11, 2020, during which appellant testified that she had no prior 

problems with her right shoulder. Appellant indicated that she was handling an increased number 

of packages due to the Christmas holiday season and was constantly throwing packages overhead 

ranging from 5 to 50 pounds. She noted that she threw approximately six boxes that weighed 50 

pounds and started to feel a pinch in her shoulder, followed by pain.

By decision dated August 19, 2020, the hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

February 19, 2020 decision.

In a March 15, 2021 permanent impairment evaluation report, Dr. Albert Johnson, aBoardcertified orthopedic surgeon, noted that appellant related complaints of right shoulder pain and 

stiffness due to lifting and throwing boxes weighing up to 50 pounds at work on 

December 14, 2019. He reviewed the December 27, 2019 x-rays and a March 3, 2020 MRI scan 

of the right shoulder, which he found revealed degenerative changes of the AC and glenohumeral 

joints, thickening of the inferior glenohumeral ligament suggesting adhesive capsulitis, 

degeneration of the glenoid labrum with posterior superior tear, tendinosis, and an interstitial tear 

of the supraspinatus with bursitis in the subacromial region. Dr. Johnson performed a physical 

examination and documented tenderness over the right AC joint and bicipital groove and reduced 

range of motion. He diagnosed post-traumatic sprain/strain syndrome of the right shoulder, 

aggravation of underlying quiescent AC and glenohumeral arthropathy, interstitial tear of the 

supraspinatus with rotator cuff tendinosis and bursitis in the subacromial bursa, and aggravation 

of degenerated glenoid labrum with a tear in the posterosuperior margin. Dr. Johnson opined that 

the December 14, 2019 employment injury caused the diagnosed conditions and provided an 
4

impairment rating of 18 percent of the right upper extremity under the sixth edition of the American 

Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides).

3

 

On June 9, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of OWCP’s 

August 19, 2020 decision. In support thereof, counsel submitted a May 24, 2021 narrative report 

by Dr. Johnson, who indicated that he had reviewed appellant’s March 15, 2021 evaluation and 

various letters from counsel. Dr. Johnson noted that, based upon a review of medical literature, 

the AC joint can be injured by repetitive overload resulting in either degeneration or osteolysis of 

the clavicle and that awkward postures of the shoulder, such as 60 degrees of flexion, are 

considered occupational risk factors for shoulder pathology. He also noted that repeating the same 

shoulder motions can stress the rotator cuff muscles and tendons and lead to overuse tears. 

Dr. Johnson opined that the December 14, 2019 employment injury caused an aggravation of 

preexisting underlying quiescent AC and glenohumeral arthropathies and an aggravation of the 

degenerated labrum. He explainedthat repetitively reaching overhead and throwing packages “can 

certainly cause impingement leading to the rotator cuff tendinopathy found on [appellant’s] MRI.”

Dr. Johnson further explained that preexisting age-related osteoarthritis in the AC joint resulted in 

less space in the area, which caused a greater probability of shoulder tendinopathy with shoulder 

elevation.

By decision dated August 31, 2021, OWCP denied modification of the August 19, 2020 

decision.

On October 25, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the 

August 31, 2021 decision. In support thereof, counsel submitted an October 6, 2021 narrative

report by Dr. Johnson, who opined that repetitive overhead activity caused impingement of the 

rotator cuff, which led to a rotator cuff tear and a posterior labral tear. Dr. Johnson explained that 

repetitive overhead activity was directly responsible for the tear of the supraspinatus and labrum 

as well as aggravation of underlying right shoulder arthropathy. 

By decision dated June 9, 2022, OWCP denied modification of its August 31, 2021 

decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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,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 

3 A.M.A., Guides(6th ed. 2009).

4

Supra note 2.

5 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 
5

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 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.8 

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

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence.9 A physician’s

opinion on whether there is causal relationship between the diagnosed condition and the implicated 

employment incident must be based on a complete factual and medical background. 10 

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 incident.11

In any case where a preexisting condition involving the same part of the body is present 

and the issue of causal relationship, therefore, involves aggravation, acceleration or precipitation, 

the physician must provide a rationalized medical opinion that differentiates between the effects 

of the work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition.12

ANALYSIS

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

In his May 24, 2021 narrative report, Dr. Johnson opined that the December 14, 2019 

employment injury caused an aggravation of preexisting underlying quiescent AC and 

glenohumeral arthropathies and an aggravation of the degenerated labrum. He explained that 

repetitively reaching overhead and throwing packages can certainly cause impingement leading to 

6 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).

7 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). 

8 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).

9

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April24, 2019); RobertG. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

10 C.F., Docket No. 18-0791 (issued February 26, 2019); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

11 Id.

12 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013); 

M.B., Docket No. 20-1275 (issued January 29, 2021); see R.D., Docket No. 18-1551 (issued March 1, 2019).
6

the rotator cuff tendinopathy found on appellant’s MRI scan. Dr. Johnson further explained that 

preexisting age-related osteoarthritis in the AC joint resulted in less space in the area, which caused 

a greater probability of shoulder tendinopathy with shoulder elevation. In his October 6, 2021 

narrative report, he clarified that repetitive overhead activity caused impingement of the rotator 

cuff, which led to a rotator cuff tear and a posterior labral tear. Dr. Johnson explained that 

repetitive overhead activity was directly responsible for the tear of the supraspinatus and labrum 

as well as aggravation of underlying right shoulder arthropathy. It is well established that 

proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and OWCP is not a disinterested arbiter. 13 

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 

The Board finds that Dr. Johnson’s opinion, while not fully rationalized, is sufficient to 

require further development of the case record by OWCP as it provides a pathophysiological 

explanation as to how the acceptedDecember 14, 2019 employment incident caused or contributed 

to appellant’s diagnosed condition(s).

16

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

evidence. 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 

employment incident caused, contributed to, or aggravated the diagnosed right shoulder 

conditions.17 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. Johnson.

Following 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.

13 M.T., Docket No. 19-0373 (issued August22, 2019); B.A., Docket No. 17-1360 (issued January 10, 2018).

14 See M.M., Docket No. 22-0637 (issued November 30, 2022);A.P.,Docket No. 17-0813 (issued January 3, 2018);

Jimmy A. Hammons, 51 ECAB 219, 223 (1999).

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

February19, 2010); JohnJ. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

16 M.S., Docket No. 20-1095 (issued March 29, 2022); B.F., Docket No. 20-0990 (issued January 13, 2021); Y.D., 

Docket No. 19-1200 (issued April6, 2020).

17 C.G., Docket No. 20-1121 (issued February 11, 2021); A.G., Docket No. 20-0454 (issued October 29, 2020).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 9, 2022 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: December 29, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board