United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BROOKLYN 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Brooklyn, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1086

Issued: January 28, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On July 12, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a June 4, 2021

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 his burden of proof to establish a right leg condition

causally related to the accepted September 27, 2017 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.3 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as 

follows. 

On October 4, 2017 appellant, then a 64-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 27, 2017 he pulled a muscle in his right leg when 

lifting and pulling a pallet of mail while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on 

September 28, 2017.

By decision dated December 1, 2017, OWCP accepted that the September 27, 2017 

employment incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim,

finding that he had not submitted any evidence “containing a medical diagnosis in connection with 

the injury and/or event(s).” Consequently, OWCP concluded that the requirements had not been 

met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

On December 22, 2017 appellant, through counsel, requested a hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. A hearing was held on April 26, 2018.

Appellant submitted a March 27, 2018 report by Dr. Russell H. Silver, a Board-certified 

physiatrist, who noted appellant’s history of injury and referenced his findings from examination 

on October 24, 2017 that revealed ecchymosis and pain in the right gastrocsoleus region and right 

knee. He opined that appellant’s diagnosis of right muscle tear in the right calf was “a direct result 

of the accident that occurred on September 27, 2017” and that he continued to be partially disabled.

By decision dated July 9, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative modified the December 1, 

2017 decision, finding that appellant had established a medical diagnosis in connection with the 

September 27, 2017 accepted employment incident. However, the hearing representative affirmed 

the December 1, 2017 decision as modified, finding that the medical evidence of record was 

insufficiently rationalized to establish causal relationship between a diagnosed medical condition 

and the accepted September 27, 2017 employment incident.

On March 15, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the July 9, 

2018 decision.

By decision dated June 6, 2019, OWCP denied modification of the July 9, 2018 decision.

On June 24, 2019 appellant, through counsel, appealed to the Board. By decision dated

June 30, 2020, the Board affirmed the June 6, 2019 decision, finding that appellant had not met 

3 Docket No. 19-1446 (issued June30, 2020). 
3

his burden of proof to establish a right leg condition causally related to the accepted September 27, 

2017 employment incident.4

OWCP received additional evidence. Dr. Silver treated appellant on August 20, 2020 for 

right knee, right leg, and right shoulder pain. Findings on examination revealed ecchymosis and 

pain in the right gastrocsoleus area, limited range of motion of the right ankle and knee, and right 

lower extremity weakness. Dr. Silver diagnosed lumbosacral radiculopathy, cervical spine 

radiculopathy, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, bilateral tibial neuropathy, and right knee and 

ankle pain. He recommended additional diagnostic testing and physical therapy.

On September 22, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration.

By decision dated December 15, 2020, OWCP denied modification of the June 6, 2019 

decision.

OWCP received additional evidence. In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated 

January 17, 2020, Dr. Silver diagnosed neck and shoulder pain and advised that appellant could 

not resume work. On February 25, 2021 he evaluated appellant for back pain radiating into the 

bilateral lower extremity with numbness and tingling. Appellant’s history was significant for 

traumatic injury at work. Findings on examination revealed limited range of motion of the right 

knee, SI joint tenderness to palpation, right trochanter hip tenderness, bilateral paraspinal 

tenderness of the cervical and lumbar spine, bilateral lower extremity strength deficits, and 

numbness with tingling in the bilateral lower extremities. Dr. Silver diagnosed low back pain, 

neck pain, bilateral hand/wrist pain, right hip pain, right knee pain, right shoulder pain, and right 

hand pain. On March 4, 2021 he noted that appellant would remain off work for an additional 

three weeks due to right shoulder pain and low back pain.

Appellant underwent a series of diagnostic tests. A November 7, 2020 x-ray of the cervical 

spine revealed severe degenerative change at C5-7, moderate degenerative change at C3-4, and 

mild degenerative change at C2-3 and C4-5. An x-ray of the lumbar spine dated November 11, 

2020 revealed dextroscoliosis, L4-5 degenerative anterolisthesis, marked disc space narrowing,

associated degenerative change at L5-S2, and bullet fragments. A computerized tomography (CT) 

scan of the lumbar spine dated November 17, 2020 revealed dextroscoliosis, L4-5 degenerative 

anterolisthesis, marked disc space narrowing, associated degenerative change at L5-S1, and bullet 

fragments. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the cervical spine dated November 23, 

2020 revealed disc osteophyte complexes, uncovertebral spurring from C3-4 through C7-T1, mild 

canal stenosis at C4-5 and C5-6, severe left-sided foraminal encroachment at C5-6, moderate leftsided foraminal narrowing at C3-4, and mild-to-moderate right-sided foraminal narrowing at C4-5.

In a November 27, 2020 report, Dr. Warren Lyons, a family practitioner, advised that 

appellant would remain off work due to severe degenerative arthritis complicated by multiple 

injuries to the neck, back, and shoulders.

OWCP received an unsigned attending physician’s report (Form CA-20).

4

Id.
4

On March 11, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration.

By decision dated June 4, 2021, OWCP denied modification of the December 15, 2020

decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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 and that the claim was filed within the applicable time 

limitation period of FECA,5that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as 

alleged; and that any disability or specific 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 on a traumatic injury or an 

occupational disease.7

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

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Generally, fact of 

injury consists of two components, which must be considered in conjunction with one another. 

The first component to be established is that the employee actually experienced the employment 

incident which is alleged to have occurred.8 The second component is whether the employment 

incident caused a personal injury.9

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is required to establish causal relationship. The 

opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the 

claimant, 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 the specific 

employment factors identified by the claimant.10 Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition 

manifests itself during a period of employment, nor the belief that a disease or condition was 

caused or aggravated by employment factors or incidents is sufficient to establish causal 

relationship.11

5

See R.B., Docket No. 18-1327 (issued December 31, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); JoeD. Cameron, 41 

ECAB 153 (1989).

6 Y.K., Docket No. 18-0806 (issued December 19, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); JamesE. 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.E., Docket No. 17-0547 (issued November 13, 2018); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9 D.C., Docket No. 18-1664 (issued April1, 2019); JohnJ. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

10 H.B., Docket No. 18-0781 (issued September 5, 2018).

11 D.H., Docket No. 18-1410 (issued March 21, 2019).
5

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted September 27, 2017 employment incident.

On prior appeal the Board reviewed the evidence before OWCP at the time it issued its 

June 6, 2019 decision and found that it was insufficient to establish that appellant sustained an 

injury causally related to the accepted September 27 2017 employment incident. The Board’s 

review of the previously submitted medical evidence of record is res judicata absent further review 

by OWCP under section 8128 of FECA and, therefore, the prior evidence need not be addressed 

again in this decision.12

In an August 20, 2020 report, Dr. Silver treated appellant for right knee, right leg, and right 

shoulder pain. He diagnosed lumbosacral radiculopathy, cervical spine radiculopathy, bilateral 

carpal tunnel syndrome, bilateral tibial neuropathy, and right knee and ankle pain. In a CA-17 

dated January 17, 2020, Dr. Silver diagnosed neck and shoulder pain and advised that appellant 

could not work. Similarly, on February 25, 2021 he treated appellant for back pain radiating into 

the bilateral lower extremity. Dr. Silver diagnosed low back pain, neck pain, bilateral hand/wrist 

pain, right hip pain, right knee pain, right shoulder pain, and right hand pain. Likewise, on 

March 4, 2021 he noted that appellant would remain out of work for an additional three weeks due 

to right shoulder pain and low back pain. On November 27, 2020 Dr. Lyons also advised that 

appellant would remain out of work due to severe degenerative arthritis complicated by multiple 

injuries to the neck, back, and shoulders. However, in these reports, Dr. Silver and Dr. Lyons did 

not provide an opinion regarding whether a diagnosed medical condition was causally related to 

the accepted September 27, 2017 employment incident. 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.13 Therefore, these reports are of no probative 

value regarding appellant’s claim for a September 27, 2017 traumatic injury and they are 

insufficient to establish his claim.

Appellant submitted diagnostic tests including a November 7, 2020 x-ray of the cervical 

spine, an x-ray of the lumbar spine dated November 11, 2020, a CT scan of the lumbar spine dated 

November 17, 2020, and an MRI scan of the cervical spine dated November 23, 2020. The Board 

has held, however, that reports of diagnostic tests, standing alone, lack probative value as they do 

not provide an opinion on causal relationship between an employment incident and a diagnosed 

condition.14

OWCP received an unsigned attending physician’s report (Form CA-20). There is no 

evidence that the document is from a physician. The Board has held that reports that are unsigned 

12 S.C., Docket No. 19-0920 (issued September 25, 2019); W.C.,Docket No. 18-1386 (issued January 22, 2019); 

see also G.W., Docket No. 19-1281 (issued December 4, 2019).

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

14 See J.M.,Docket No. 17-1688 (issued December 13, 2018).
6

or bear an illegible signature lack proper identification and cannot be considered probative medical 

evidence as the author cannot be identified as a physician.15 

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing causal 

relationship between his right leg condition and the accepted September 27, 2017 employment 

incident, the Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof to establish his claim.

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 established an injury to his right knee causally 

related to the accepted September 27, 2017 employment incident. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 4, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 28, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

15 See M.T., Docket No. 21-0783 (issued December 27, 2021); Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988); see also 

BradfordL. Sullivan, 33 ECAB 1568(1982) (where the Board held that a medical report may not be considered as 

probative medical evidence if there is no indication that the person completing the report qualifies as a “physician” as 

defined in FECA).