United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, VICKERY STATION, 

Dallas, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1204

Issued: March 11, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 3, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 29, 2021 merit decision 

and a July 27, 2021 nonmerit 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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a medical 

condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment; and (2) whether 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the July 27, 2021 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to the Board. 

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

OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of his claim, pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 28, 2021 appellant, then a 69-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed bilateral wrist pain due to factors of his federal 

employment. He noted that an attached statement explained how his employment factors caused 

his condition, however, no such statement was contained in the record. Appellant noted that he 

first became aware of his claimed injury on December 16, 2021 and realized its relation to his

federal employment on January 26, 2021.3 On the reverse side of the claim form, his supervisor, 

M.J., indicated that appellant’s work was modified so that he did not have to lift items over 10 

pounds and that he was attendingphysical therapy daily. The employing establishment challenged 

appellant’s claim because appellant did not submit any factual or medical documentation.

In a development letter dated February 5, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. It advised him of the type of additional factual and medical evidence 

needed and provided a questionnaire for his completion. In a separate development letter of even 

date, OWCP requested additional information from the employing establishment, including 

comments from a knowledgeable supervisor and an explanation of appellant’s work activities. It 

afforded both parties 30 days to respond.

A January 26, 2021 report from Dr. Juan Zamora, a Board-certified physician specializing 

in family medicine, related appellant’s history of injury. Appellant awoke on December 16, 2020 

with sharp pain in his left wrist and continued to experience frequent pain and discomfort 

extending into his middle fingers. A similar pattern of pain started in his right wrist on 

December 30, 2020. Appellant also began to experience right elbow pain on January 4, 2021. 

Pain in each of these areas increased with activity. Dr. Zamora opined that appellant’s condition 

was work related and recommended diagnostic testing. He diagnosed unspecified sprains of the 

right elbow and both wrists.

On February 9, 2021 appellant responded to OWCP’s development questionnaire, noting 

that he worked limited duty and retired from the employing establishment on February 1, 2021. 

He indicated that his responses to OWCP’s remaining questions were contained in an attached 

statement, however, no such statement is found in the record.

Appellant underwent bilateral wrist x-rays and a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan

on February 10, 2021. The x-ray of his left wrist revealed severe triscaphe and mild 

trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis and a one millimeter ulnar positive variance indicating possible 

ulnar impaction syndrome or triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) tears. The x-ray of 

appellant’s right wrist revealed severe triscaphe and mild radiocarpal and trapeziometacarpal 

osteoarthritis. The MRI scan of his left wrist demonstrated tricompartmental wrist effusions, 

chondromalacia within the lunate and distal ulna, which could relate to ulnar impaction syndrome 

and/or osteoarthritis, severe triscaphe and mild-to-moderate trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis, 

3 A January 20, 2021 notice of separation indicated that appellant retired from the employing establishment on 

January 31, 2021.
3

increased signal within the TFCC compatible with either a TFCC tear or TFCC degeneration, and 

mild generalized extensor tenosynovitis. The MRI scan of appellant’s right wrist demonstrated 

mild generalized extensor tenosynovitis with grade 1 strain of the extensor carpi ulnaris tendon, 

tricompartmental wrist effusions,severe triscaphe and mild trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis, and

increased signal within the TFCC indicative of either a TFCC tear or TFCC degeneration.

In a February 23, 2021 report, Dr. Zamora reviewed the February 10, 2021 x-ray and MRI 

scans and diagnosed chondromalacia, osteoarthritis, and TFCC degeneration, possibly with tears. 

He opined that appellant’s conditions were due to the natural wear and tear of the body but were 

aggravated by his 42 years of work for the employing establishment. Dr. Zamora advised appellant 

to begin a regimen of physical rehabilitation.

By decision dated March 29, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that the medical evidence submitted was insufficient to establish causal relationship 

between his diagnosed conditions and the accepted factors of his federal employment.

Appellant subsequently submitted an undated statement responding to OWCP’s initial 

development questionnaire. He described his employment activities, including daily sorting and 

delivering of mail and parcels weighing up to 70 pounds and carrying up to 35 pounds of letters, 

flats, and small parcels in a satchel carried on left shoulder such that weight was almost entirely 

on his left shoulder and arm. Appellant noted that he had been under lifting restrictions at work

since July 2020 due to a left arm injury. He compensated for his left arm injury by doing more 

work with his right arm. Appellant’s left wrist and hand pain began during the night on 

December 16, 2020, and he reported it to his station manager, D.D, the next day. Similar pain 

began in his right wrist on December 30, 2020 and in his right arm and elbow on January 4, 2021.

Appellant experienced greater pain and discomfort during periods of activity. He reported this 

history to his manager, M.J., on January 13 and 15, 2020. Appellant’s activities outside of work 

consisted mainly of listening to music and watching movies. He believed that his symptoms were 

indicative of repetitive motion injuries due to the nature of his work for the employing 

establishment. 

OWCP received February 23, 2021 report from Dr. Zamora in which he again reviewed 

the February 10, 2021 x-rays and MRI scans and diagnosed chondromalacia, osteoarthritis, and 

TFCC degeneration, possibly with tears. Dr. Zamora opined that appellant’s conditions were due 

to the natural wear and tear of the body but were aggravated by his 42 years of work at the 

employing establishment. Specifically, he explained that appellant’s work duties, including 

carrying and handling heavy loads, sorting and casing mail, repetitively twisting at the wrist to 

open mailboxes, and repetitively locking and unlocking his work vehicle throughout the day, 

aggravated his conditions. Dr. Zamora advised that appellant begin a regimen of physical 

rehabilitation.

On April 28, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. In support of his request, he 

submitted an April 27, 2021 statement, in which he contended that his more than 42 years of 

service to the employing establishment, including a great deal of overtime, directly contributed to 

his diagnosed conditions. Appellant noted that, as a result of a previously accepted left arm injury, 

assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx014, he had been restricted to eight hours of work per day during 

the latter half of 2020. Finally, he argued that the medical documentation proved causal 
4

relationship between his diagnosed medical conditions and the accepted factors of his federal 

employment.

By decision dated July 27, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of his claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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,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 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 establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant 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 identified employment factors. 8

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opin ion 

evidence to resolve the issue.9 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factor(s) 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 

4

Supra note 1.

5

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

153 (1989).

6

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

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

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

8 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).

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

10 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018).
5

rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s 

specific employment factor(s).11

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

In his January 26, 2021 report, Dr. Zamora diagnosed unspecified sprains of the right 

elbow and both wrists and opined that appellant’s condition was work related. Similarly, in a 

February 23, 2021 report, he diagnosed chondromalacia, osteoarthritis, and TFCC degeneration, 

possibly with tears, and opined that appellant’s conditions were due to the natural wear and tear of 

the body, but were aggravated by appellant’s 42 years of work for the employing establishment. 

While he provided an affirmative opinion suggestive of causal relationship, Dr. Zamora did not 

offer medical rationale sufficient to explain why he believes appellant’s employment duties could 

have resulted in or contributed to his diagnosed conditions. Without identifying specific 

employment duties or explaining how they caused or aggravated appellant’s conditions,

Dr. Zamora’s letter is of limited probative value and is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of 

proof.12

In a separate February 23, 2021 report, Dr. Zamora repeated the above diagnoses and again 

opined that appellant’s conditions were due to the natural wear and tear of the body, but were 

aggravated by appellant’s 42 years of work for the employing establishment. Specifically, he

explained that appellant’s work duties, including carrying and handling heavy loads, sorting and 

casing mail, repetitively twisting at the wrist to open mailboxes, and repetitively locking and 

unlocking his work vehicle throughout the day, aggravated his conditions. However, Dr. Zamora 

did not explain how any of these described employment activities caused appellant’s diagnosed 

chondromalacia, osteoarthritis, and TFCC degeneration. To be of probative medical value, a 

medical opinion must explain how, physiologically, the movements involved in the employment 

activities caused or contributed to the diagnosed conditions.13 As such, Dr. Zamora’s report is 

insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

The remaining medical evidence consisted of bilateral x-ray and MRI scans of appellant’s 

wrists. The Board has held, however, that diagnostic testing reports, standing alone, lack probative 

value on the issue of causal relationship as they do not address the relationship between the 

accepted employment factors and a diagnosed condition.14 For this reason, this evidence is also 

insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

11 Id.; Victor J. Woodhams,supra note 8.

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

13 A.W., Docket No. 19-0327 (issued July 19, 2019); M.D., Docket No. 18-0195 (issued September 13, 2018); 

Jimmie H. Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001).

14 W.M.,Docket No. 19-1853 (issued May 13, 2020); L.F., Docket No. 19-1905 (issued April10, 2020).
6

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence sufficient to establish a 

medical condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment, the Board 

finds that he has not met his burden of proof.15

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.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Section 8128(a) of FECA vests OWCP with discretionary authority to determine whether 

to review an award for or against compensation. The Secretary of Labor may review an award for 

or against compensation at any time on his own motion or on application. 16

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review pursuant to FECA, the claimant must 

provide evidence or an argument which: (1) shows that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted 

a specific point of law; (2) advances a relevant legal argument not previously considered by 

OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by 

OWCP.17

A request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of 

OWCP decision for which review is sought.18 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens and 

reviews the case on its merits.19 If the request is timely but fails to meet at least one of the 

requirements for reconsideration, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for review on the merits.20

15 See T.J., Docket No. 19-1339 (issued March 4, 2020); F.D., Docket No. 19-0932 (issued October 3, 2019); D.N.,

Docket No. 19-0070 (issued May 10, 2019); R.B., Docket No. 18-1327 (issued December 31, 2018).

16 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a);see L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019);see also V.P., Docket No. 17-

1287 (issued October 10, 2017); D.L., Docket No. 09-1549 (issued February 23, 2010); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).

17 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3);see L.D.,id;see also L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 (issued March 3, 2010); C.N., Docket 

No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008).

18 Id. at § 10.607(a). The one-year period begins on the next day after the date of the original contested decision. 

For merit decisions issued on or after August 29, 2011, a request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP 

within one year of OWCP’s decision forwhich review is sought. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, 

Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 (September 2020). Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date of the 

request for reconsideration as indicated by the received date in the Integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation 

System (iFECS). Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4b.

19 Id. at § 10.608(a); see also A.F., Docket No. 19-1832 (issued July 21, 2020); M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

20 Id. at § 10.608(b); J.B., Docket No. 20-0145 (issued September 8, 2020); Y.K., Docket No. 18-1167 (issued 

April 2, 2020); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued March 18, 2010).
7

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the 

merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

Appellant has not alleged or demonstrated that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted 

a specific point of law. Moreover, appellant has not advanced a relevant legal argument not 

previously considered. Consequently, he is not entitled to a review of the merits of his claim based 

on the first and second above-noted requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).21

Appellant also did not submit relevant and pertinent new evidence in support of his 

reconsideration request. The underlying issue on reconsideration is whether appellant has met his 

burden of proof to establish a medical condition causally related to the accepted factors of his 

federal employment. This is a medical issue which is addressed by relevant medical evidence not 

previously considered.22

With his request for reconsideration, appellant submitted an undated response to OWCP’s 

initial development questionnaire, a February 23, 2021 medical report from Dr. Zamora, and an 

April 27, 2021 statement contending that his conditions were causally related to the accepted 

factors of his federal employment. The undated questionnaire response and the April 27, 2021 

statement do not constitute relevant and pertinent new evidence as they are not medical evidence. 

Further, Dr. Zamora’s separate February 23, 2021 medical report substantially replicates a 

previously considered report of even date. The only addition in the later-submitted report was a 

list of employment activities that he believed aggravated appellant’s medical conditions. 

Dr. Zamora’s did not, however, offer an explanation of the causal relationship between those 

activities and the diagnosed conditions. The Board has held that the submission of evidence that 

does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.23 

As such, appellant is not entitled to further review of the merits of his claim based on the third 

above-noted requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).24

The Board, accordingly, finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.25

CONCLUSION

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

condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment. The Board further 

21 C.B., Docket No. 18-1108 (issued January 22, 2019).

22 Y.L., Docket No. 20-1025 (issued November 25, 2020).

23 See T.T., Docket No. 19-0319 (issued October 26, 2020);AlanG. Williams, 52 ECAB 180 (2000); Jacqueline M. 

Nixon-Steward, 52 ECB 140 (2000); Edward Matthew Diekemper; 31 ECAB 224, 225 (1979).

24 Supra note 16.

25 J.B., supra note 20;D.G., Docket No. 19-1348 (issued December 2, 2019).
8

finds that OWCP properly denied his request for reconsideration of the merits of his claim pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 29 and July 27, 2021 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.26

Issued: March 11, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

26 Upon return of the case record, OWCP may consider administratively combining the current claim file with 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx014.