United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.F., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Louisville, KY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0886

Issued: December 22, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 26, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a May 13, 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a right eye injury 

causally related to the accepted February 18, 2021 employment incident.

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 2, 2021 appellant, then a 33-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on February 18, 2021 she sustained a right eye injury when an object 

“flew into her eye” while in the performance of duty. She did not stop work.

On March 1, 2021 Postmaster B.G. submitted a letter controverting appellant’s claim. She 

alleged that appellant delayed informing her of an alleged January 13, 2021 incident where a box 

had fallen from a truck and struck her right eye. Appellant subsequently sought treatment with an 

optometrist and was advised there was “nothing wrong.” On February 18, 2022 while on her route 

looking for her arrow key, she alleged that something flew into her right eye. Appellant returned 

to the optometrist on February 19, 2021 and was advised that she had a retinal detachment. B.G. 

contended that appellant’sright eye condition was not employment related as she delayed reporting 

the alleged workplace incidents. Additionally, she contended that retinal detachment was an 

inherited condition, noting that when Supervisor K.T. telephoned appellant to check on her, 

appellant’s mother answered the telephone and advised that she had just undergone the same 

procedure.

In a development letter dated March 4, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

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

questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. 

On March 8, 2021 OWCP received a February 20, 2021 tracking form and aftercare 

instructions for an eye operation, and a March 4, 2021 scheduling form noting a March 18, 2021 

postoperative appointment and a March 29, 2021 cataract evaluation.

By decision dated April 13, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the alleged February 18, 2021 

employment incident occurred as alleged. Consequently, it found that she had not met the 

requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

OWCP continued to receive evidence, including appellant’s February 18, 2021 statement 

asserting that on January 13, 2021 at approximately 12:30 p.m., she opened the rear of her delivery 

truck and a package fell out and struck her eye. Appellant experienced blurred vision and began 

seeing “flurries and black dots.” Two days afterward, she advised Supervisor K.T. and Postmaster 

B.G. of the incident. Appellant went to an optometrist and was told there was nothing wrong. On 

Thursday, February 18, 2021 at approximately 5:00 p.m., while looking for an arrow key in and 

around her delivery truck, dust, salt, or dirt flew into her eye and she started to see black dots 

across her field of vision. Appellant again went to the optometrist and was advised she had a 

retinal detachment. She underwent retinal repair surgery on February 20, 2021. 

OWCP received a February 19, 2021 report by Dr. Andrew Steele, an optometrist, 

regarding possible retinal detachment in the right eye. Dr. Steele recounted that appellant’s vision 

“went dark” on February 18, 2021. Approximately one month previously, a box struck appellant’s 

right eye while she was at work. Appellant sought immediate treatment with an optometrist.

Dr. Steele diagnosed right retinal detachment, single break with split fovea, status post-trauma, 

bilateral glaucoma, and an age-related/combined form cataract in the left eye. He opined that the 
3

employment incident where a box fell onto appellant’s right eye was “likely a red herring” as the 

package was not particularly heavy and caused only a brief and limited amount of pain.

Appellant also submitted chart notes dated from February 22 through April 15, 2021 by

Dr. Janelle F. Adeniran, a Board-certified ophthalmologist, noting appellant’s recuperation from 

surgery to repair a single break retinal detachment in the right eye and evaluation for bilateral 

glaucoma and a cataract in the left eye.

OWCP also received a March 29, 2021 bilateral cataract evaluation by Dr. Kelly E. 

Sedlock, an optometrist, an April 8, 2021 presurgical consultation report, and an April 21, 2021 

operative report by Dr. John Millin, a Board-certified ophthalmologist, noting cataract removal 

with lens implant in the left eye. 

In a July 14, 2021 report, Dr. Anupa Mandava, an ophthalmologist, recounted that 

appellant had been struck in the right eye by a tray of mail when she opened the rear of her truck, 

causing “flurries” in her field of vision. On February 18, 2021 while searching for her arrow key, 

something flew into appellant’s right eye, causing blurred vision. Appellant went to an optometrist

on February 19, 2021 and was diagnosed with retinal detachment. She then underwent surgery on 

February 20, 2021. Dr. Mandava opined that “the above diagnosis was directly related to causing 

[appellant] to have a retinal detachment with vitrectomy surgery.”

In an October 20, 2021 report, Dr. Keith Slayden, an optometrist, obtained retinal 

topography images. He diagnosed age-related nuclear cataract of the right eye, single break retinal 

detachment of the right eye, dry eye syndrome of the right eye, and cataract with intraocular lens 

implant in the left eye.

On October 21, 2021 appellant submitted answers to the March 4, 2021 development 

questionnaire. She recounted that on January 13, 2021 a package from her truck had fallen and 

struck her right eye, causing a brief blurring of vision. Appellant reported the incident to 

management on January 15, 2021. On February 18, 2021, while delivering mail, snow or dirt flew 

into her right eye, causing floaters and black dots in her field of vision. 

On November 4, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. 

In a December 28, 2021 report, Dr. Fraser McKay, an optometrist, diagnosed suspected 

bilateral open angle glaucoma with elevated intraocular pressure in the right eye. 

By decision dated February 1, 2022, OWCP denied modification of its April 13, 2021 

decision. 

In a March 1, 2022 report, Dr. McKay opined that appellant’s right retinal detachment was 

caused by a tub of mail that shifted forward and hit her right eye, not the debris that later flew into 

her eye on February 18, 2021. 

In a March 1, 2002 statement, appellant clarified that Dr. McKay meant to reference the 

package that had struck her right eye, but instead referred to a tub of mail.
4

On March 3, 2022 OWCP received screen captures of February 18, 2021 text messages 

from appellant alleging that something had flown into the same eye that had been struck in 

January 2021, and asking if she needed to file an accident report. 

On March 15, 2022 OWCP received a February 4, 2022 report by Dr. McKay holding 

appellant off work. 

On April 8, 2022 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. 

By decision dated May 13, 2022, OWCP modified its February 1, 2022 decision to find 

that the identified February 18, 2022 employment incident had occurred as alleged. However, it 

denied the claim as the medical evidence of record did not contain sufficient rationale to establish 

causal relationship between the diagnosed ocular conditions and the accepted February 18, 2021

employment incident.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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 of FECA,4that 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.5 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.6

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. 7 Fact of injury 

consists of 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.8 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury.9

3

20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a).

4 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4(b) (September 2020).

5 G.G., Docket No. 18-1072 (issued January 7, 2019); E.R., Docket No. 09-0599 (issued June 3, 2009); LeonD. 

Faidley, Jr., 41 ECAB 104 (1989).

6

See 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); M.H., Docket No. 18-0623 (issued October 4 2018);Charles J. Prudencio, 41 ECAB 

499, 501-02 (1990).

7 L.C., Docket No. 18-1407 (issued February 14, 2019); M.L., Docket No. 09-0956 (issued April15, 2010). See 

also 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b);supranote 4 at Chapter 2.1602.5 (September 2020).

8

J.W., Docket No. 18-0703 (issued November 14, 2018); RobertG. Burns, 57 ECAB 657 (2006).

9

J.S., Docket No. 16-1240 (issued December 1, 2016);supra note 4 at Chapter 2.1602.5(a) (September 2020).
5

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.10 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.11 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 factor(s).12

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a right eye 

injury causally related to the accepted February 18, 2021 employment incident.

Appellant submitted reports by Dr. Adeniran dated February 22 through April 15, 2021, 

noting appellant’s recuperation from right retinal detachment and ongoing evaluations for a 

cataract in the left eye and bilateral glaucoma. OWCP also received reports by Dr. Sedlock and

Dr. Millin regarding surgery to remove the left cataract. Dr. Slayden provided an October 20, 

2021 report diagnosing bilateral cataracts, right retinal detachment, right dry eye syndrome, and 

postsurgical status. As these reports do not provide an opinion on causal relationship between the 

diagnosed conditions and the accepted February 18, 2021 employment incident, they are of no 

probative value in establishing causal relationship.13

Dr. Steele opined in a February 19, 2021 report that the accepted employment incident 

caused appellant’s right retinal detachment as diagnosed on February 18, 2021. The Board has 

held that a report is of limited probative value regarding causal relationship if it does not contain 

medical rationale explaining how a given medical condition/disability was related to employment 

factors.14 For this reason, the Board finds that Dr. Steele’s February 19, 2021 report is insufficient 

to establish the claim. 

Dr. Mandaya, in a July 14, 2021 report, noted the history of the alleged January 2021 

employment incident and the accepted February 18, 2021 employment incident. She opined that 

the diagnosed right retinal detachment was directly related to the need for surgery. However,

Dr. Mandaya did not provide a rationalized medical opinion explaining how the accepted 

February 18, 2021 employment incident physiologically caused a medical condition. As noted 

above, a report is of limited probative value regarding causal relationship if it does not contain 

medical rationale explaining how a given medical condition/disability was related to employment 

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a);see J.W., supra note 8; Alberta Dukes, 56 ECAB 247 (2005).

11 Supra note 4 at Chapter 2.1602.4 (September 2020);VelettaC. Coleman, 48 ECAB 367, 370 (1997).

12 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); R.C., Docket No. 22-0426 (issued July 22, 2022); see Debra McDavid, 57 ECAB 

149 (2005).

13 J.W., supra note 8.

14 See Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017) (finding that a report is of limited probative value 

regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale describing the relation between work factors and 

a diagnosed condition/disability).
6

factors.15 This report is, therefore, insufficient to establish an injury causally related to the 

accepted employment incident.

In a March 1, 2022 report, Dr. McKay opined that appellant’s right retinal detachment was 

caused by a tub of mail that shifted forward and struck her right eye, and not the February 18, 2021 

incident when debris flew into appellant’s right eye. Thus, his report negates the alleged causal 

relationship between the accepted February 18, 2021 employment incident and right retinal 

detachment. The Board has held that medical evidence that negates causal relationship is of no 

probative value.16 Accordingly, this report is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

The record also contains optical imaging studies. The Board has held, however, that 

diagnostic studies,standing alone, lack probative value as they do not provide an opinion on causal

relationship17 

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish a medical condition causally 

related to the accepted February 18, 2021 employment incident, the Board finds that appellant has 

not met her 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 her burden of proof to establish a right eye 

condition causally related to the accepted February 18, 2021 employment incident.

15 Id.

16 M.W., Docket No. 21-1121 (issued April4, 2022); C.M., Docket No. 21-0435 (issued October 22, 2021).

17 N.B., Docket No. 20-0794 (issued July 29, 2022); C.F., Docket No. 19-1748 (issued March 27, 2020); L.B., 

Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 13, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 22, 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