United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.O., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Roosevelt, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0473

Issued: January 31, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 8, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a December 1, 

2020 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).2 Pursuant to the 

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, during the pendency of this appeal, OWCP issued an April22, 2021 decision,which denied 

modification of its December 1, 2020 decision. The Board and OWCP may not simultaneously exercise jurisdiction 

over the same issue(s). Consequently, OWCP’s April22, 2021 decision is set aside as null and void. 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 501.2(c)(3), 10.626; see J.W., Docket No. 19-1688, n.1 (issued March 18, 2020); J.A., Docket No. 19-0981, n.2 

(issued December 30, 2019); Russell E. Lerman, 43 ECAB 770 (1992); Douglas E. Billings, 41 ECAB 880 (1990).
2

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.4

ISSUE

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

causally related to the accepted July 24, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 24, 2020 appellant, then a 55-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on that date he injured his left knee when he jumped from the street to 

the sidewalk in an effort to clear a large puddle while in the performance of duty. He asserted that,

when he landed, he experienced a sharp pain in his left knee. On the reverse side of the claim 

form, the employing establishment contended that appellant was not in the performance of duty 

when he was injured, as he had called out sick earlier that week due to a knee injury. It further 

indicated that his injury was a result of misconduct. Appellant stopped work that same day and 

returned to part-time modified-duty work on September 14, 2020.

OWCP received a July 24, 2020 x-ray of the left knee which revealed no fracture or other 

acute osseous findings.

In a July 28, 2020 letter, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim, 

noting that he had previously called in sick on July 21, 2020 due to left knee pain and had been 

wearing a knee band every day at work. OWCP also received a position description for a city 

carrier.

In a July 28, 2020 report, an unidentifiable healthcare provider noted that appellant was 

seen that day at urgent care and excused him from work for the period July 24 through 29, 2020.

In a July 31, 2020 work status note, Dr. Paul Kubiak, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

diagnosed left knee contusion and advised that appellant was unable to work. In a duty status 

report (Form CA-17) of even date, he diagnosed left knee contusion and provided work 

restrictions.

In an August 18, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

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

establish his claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 

days to respond.

3

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4 The Board notes that, following the December 1, 2020 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, 

the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’sreview 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.
3

In medical reports dated July 31, 2020, Dr. Kubiak noted that appellant presented with left 

knee pain after injuring his left knee at work on July 24, 2020. He recounted that appellant

experienced a sharp pain after he leapt over a puddle/object on a rainy day. Dr. Kubiak noted that 

appellant reported a history of left knee arthroscopy with a meniscus tear, but that he experienced 

minimal symptoms prior to the July 24, 2020 employment incident. He conducted a physical 

examination, reviewed the left knee x-ray, and diagnosed left knee pain with contusion and a 

possible meniscus tear.

An August 22, 2020 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the left knee demonstrated 

an oblique tear involving the posterior horn and body of the medial meniscus extending to the 

inferior surface, as well as small knee joint effusion and mild osteoarthrosis in the anterior 

compartment.

In an August 19, 2020 work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c), Dr. Kubiak diagnosed 

a left knee medial meniscus tear and provided work restrictions.

In a September 11, 2020 medical report, Dr. Kubiak noted that appellant continued to 

experience left knee pain and occasional locking. He conducted a physical examination, reviewed 

an MRI scan and diagnosed left knee pain with a medial tear and recommended physical therapy 

treatment. In a Form CA-17 of even date, Dr. Kubiak diagnosed a left knee meniscus tear and 

provided work restrictions.

On September 14, 2020 the employing establishment offered appellant a modified-duty 

assignment.

In a September 15, 2020 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Kubiak reported 

that appellant injured his left knee after stepping over an object and landing awkwardly at work. 

He diagnosed a left knee medial meniscus tear.

By decision dated October 2, 2020 OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim,

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

between his diagnosed left knee condition and the accepted July 24, 2020 employment incident.

In an October 23, 2020 medical report, Dr. Kubiak again noted that appellant sustained an 

injury on July 24, 2020 when he leapt over a puddle and landed directly on his left leg with a sharp 

pain. He conducted a physical examination and diagnosed left knee pain with a medial meniscus 

tear. Dr. Kubiak opined that the acceptedJuly 24, 2020 employmentincident was the “direct cause 

of the left knee damage, including the meniscus tear, as well as associated increased pain from 

inflammatory conditions, including irritation of the underlying cartilage injury.” In a work status 

note of even date, he advised that appellant could work with restrictions.

On November 3, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration.

By decision dated December 1, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision 

dated October 2, 2020.
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 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,6 and that 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.7 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.8

To determine if an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established.9 There are two 

components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The first component is 

whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that allegedly occurred. 10 

The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury.11

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.12 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.13 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.14

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, 

5

Supra note 3.

6

S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 

ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

7 T.H., Docket No. 18-1736 (issued March 13, 2019); J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 

59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

8 T.E., Docket No. 18-1595 (issued March 13, 2019); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., 

Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February7, 2014); DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990). 

9

S.S., Docket No. 18-1488 (issued March 11, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008).

10 E.M., Docket No. 18-1599 (issued March 7, 2019); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

11 E.M., id.; John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

12 S.S., supra note 9; RobertG. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

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

14 Id. 
5

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

of the work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition.15

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted July 24, 2020 employment incident.

In an October 23, 2020 medical report,Dr. Kubiak noted that appellant injured his left knee 

when he leapt over a puddle and landed directly on his left leg on July 24, 2020. He diagnosed 

left knee pain with a medial meniscus tear. Dr. Kubiak opined that the accepted employment 

incident was the “direct cause of the left knee damage, including the meniscus tear, as well as 

associated increased pain from inflammatory conditions, including irritation of the underlying 

cartilage injury.” However, this report is conclusory. The Board has held that a medical opinion 

is of limited value if it is conclusory in nature.16 A medical opinion must explain how the 

implicated employment factors physiologically caused, contributed to, or aggravated the specific 

diagnosed conditions.17 Without this explanation, Dr. Kubiak’s October 23, 2020 medical report 

is, therefore, insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

Dr. Kubiak, in his medical reports dated July 31, 2020, noted that appellant reported to him 

that he had a history of an arthroscopy in the left knee with a meniscus tear, but that he experienced 

minimal symptoms prior to the accepted July 24, 2020 employment incident. He diagnosed left 

knee pain with contusion and a possible meniscus tear. However, Dr. Kubiak did not provide an 

opinion on the issue of causal relationship. Likewise, in a work status note and a Form CA-17 of 

even date, a Form OWCP-5c dated August 19, 2020, and medical reports dated September 11 and 

15, 2020, he diagnosed left knee contusion and a left knee medial meniscus tear and provided work 

restrictions, without addressing the issue of causal relationship. The Board has held that medical 

evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition or disability 

is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. 18 Therefore, evidence is also

insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

Appellant also submitted a July 24, 2020 x-ray and an August 22, 2020 MRI scan of the 

left knee. However, the Board has explained that diagnostic studies, standing alone, lack probative 

value as they do not address whether the employment incident caused any of the diagnosed 

conditions.19 As such, they are insufficient to establish causal relationship. 

The remaining medical evidence of record consists of a July 28, 2020 report by an 

unidentifiable health care provider, indicating that appellant was seen that day at urgent care. The 

15 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013). See 

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

16 O.N., Docket No. 20-0902 (issued May 21, 2021); C.M., Docket No. 19-0360 (issued February 25, 2020).

17 S.C., Docket No. 20-0492 (issued May6, 2021); R.S., Docket No. 19-1774 (issued April3, 2020).

18 R.O., Docket No. 20-1243 (issued May 28, 2021); P.B.,Docket No. 20-1602 (issued May 26, 2021). 

19 R.O., id.; V.L., Docket No. 20-0884 (issued February 12, 2021).
6

Board has held that reports that are unsigned or bear an illegible signature lack proper identification 

and cannot be considered probative medical evidence as the author cannot be identified as a 

physician.20 Thus, this letter is also insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing a left knee 

condition causally related to the accepted July 24, 2020 employment incident, the Board finds that 

he has not met his burden of proof.

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 left knee 

condition causally related to the accepted July 24, 2020 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 1, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 31, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

20 C.M., Docket No. 21-0004 (issued May 24, 2021); T.D., Docket No. 20-0835 (issued February 2, 2021).