United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Merrifield, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0391

Issued: June 29, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 19, 2022 appellantfiled a timely appealfroma January 14,2022merit 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a foot condition

causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 12, 2021 appellant, then a 47-year-old carrier technician,filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed plantar fasciitis of the left foot due to the

factors of his federal employment, including prolonged periods of walking and delivering mail on 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

various types of terrains. He noted that he first became aware of his condition on June 30, 2021 

and realized its relation to his federal employment on August 10, 2021. Appellant stopped work.

On August 10, 2021 Dr. Antonio Usman, a Board-certified internist, examined appellant 

for foot pain and diagnosed plantar fasciitis of the left foot. In a return to work note of even date,

he indicated that appellant was able to return to work with modified duties, including sedentary 

desk work with no standing or walking and no lifting or carrying over 10 pounds.

In an August 19, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary and provided a 

questionnaire for his completion. In a separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested 

that the employing establishment provide comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding 

the accuracy of his allegations. It afforded both parties 30 days to respond.

In an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated September 9, 2021, Brent E. Tabor, 

DPM, a podiatrist, related a date of injury of August 10, 2021 and noted that appellant was first 

examined on August 24, 2021. An examination revealed pain along the plantar fascia in both heels 

and arches. Dr. Tabor diagnosed bilateral plantar fasciitis and checked the box marked “Yes,”

indicating that appellant’s condition was caused by his employment activities of excessive 

standing and walking.

By decision dated September 28, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the alleged 

employment factors occurred as described. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not 

been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

On September 15, 2021 appellant responded to OWCP’s development questionnaire 

explaining that his official duties require continuous walking for over eight hours per day on 

various types of terrains, including unpaved surfaces and uneven grass. He further related that he 

was also required to sort mail while standing for two hours. Appellant noted that wearing four 

different types of shoes did not alleviate his symptoms. He asserted that he did not experience any 

foot condition prior to beginning his federal employment and further indicated that he did not 

engage in any physical activities outside of his employment.

In a return to work note dated September 16, 2021, Dr. Tabor held appellant off work from 

September 14 through October 5, 2021.

On October 23, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s September 28, 2021 

decision.

Appellant signed an occupational information form dated October 26, 2021 outlining his 

official duties as a carrier technician for the employing establishment.

In a medical report dated November 5, 2021, Dr. Tabor related that appellant was unable 

to stand or walk for more than 15 minutes as a mail carrier due to his diagnosed medical condition. 

He noted that he had been undergoing physical therapy since November 2, 2021.
3

In a Family and Medical Leave Act medical form dated January 5, 2022, Dr. Tabor 

diagnosed chronic plantar fasciitis of the left foot. He noted that appellant was unable to stand or 

walk and recommended that he only performs sedentary duties. In another form report of even 

date, Dr. Tabor indicated that appellant had been undergoing physical therapy since August 24, 

2021 for his diagnosed condition.

In undated return to work notes, Dr. Tabor held appellant off work from November 30, 

2021 through February 8, 2022.

By decision dated January 14, 2022, OWCP modified its September 28, 2021 decision, 

finding that appellant had established the implicated employment factors. However, it denied his 

occupational disease claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to 

establish that his diagnosed foot conditionwas causally related to the accepted factors of his federal 

employment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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,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, a claimant must submit: (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 identified employment factors by the claimant.

6

 

2

Supra note 1.

3 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). 

4 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).

5 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).

6 T.W., Docket No. 20-0767 (issued January 13, 2021); L.D., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); S.C., 

Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019).
4

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

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 7 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. 8

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a foot condition

causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted CA-20 form reports dated September 9, and 

November 5, 2021 from Dr. Tabor, who diagnosed bilateral plantar fasciitis and checked the box 

marked “Yes,” that his employment activities of excessive standing and walking in his capacity as 

a mail carrier caused or aggravated his condition. The Board has held, however, that an opinion 

on causal relationship which consists of a physician checking a box in response to a form question, 

without supporting medical rationale explaining how the employment activity caused the 

diagnosed condition, is of little probative value.9 Thus, his September 9 and November 5, 2021 

reports are insufficient to establish that his diagnosed condition should be accepted as employment

related.10

The remaining medical evidence of record consists of an August 10, 2021 report and return 

to work note from Dr. Usman, wherein he diagnosed plantar fasciitis of the left foot and provided 

work restrictions. However, Dr. Usman did not offer an opinionon whether appellant’s diagnosed 

foot condition was causally related to his employment factors. 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.11 As such, this evidence is insufficient to 

establish appellant’s burden of proof.

As there is no rationalized medical evidence explaining how appellant’s employment duties 

caused or aggravated his diagnosed condition, he has not met his burden of proof.

7

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).

8 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).

9

See O.N., Docket No. 20-0902 (issued May 21, 2021); A.R., Docket No. 19-0465 (issued August10, 2020); C.T., 

Docket No. 20-0020 (issued April29, 2020); M.R., Docket No. 17-1388 (issued November 2, 2017); Gary J. Watling, 

52 ECAB 278 (2001).

10 See R.D., Docket No. 18-1551 (issued March 1, 2019).

11 L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); see D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 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 his burden of proof to establish a foot condition

causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 14, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 29, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board