United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, WATERFORD POST 

OFFICE, Waterford, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0214

Issued: September 21, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 24, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 30, 2021 merit 

decision and an October 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 her burden of proof to establish a bilateral

wrist or elbow condition causally related to accepted factors of her federal employment; and 

(2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her 

claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that,following the October 27, 2021 decision,OWCP received additional evidence. 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 9, 2021 appellant, then a 60-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) caused by

repetitive duties of sorting, delivering, and grasping mail. She noted that she first became aware 

of her condition and realized its relation to factors of her federal employment on June 9, 2021.

Appellant did not stop work. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a narrative statement wherein she related that 

she had been experiencing pain, numbness and tingling, and loss of grip in both hands for several 

weeks, which was not subsiding. She noted that her pain worsened when sorting, delivering mail,

and handling packages. Appellant indicated that she saw her physician, was diagnosed with CTS,

and was fitted for a hand brace. She also noted that she had undergone electromyography (EMG) 

tests.

Appellant’s June 17, 2021 EMG and nerve conduction velocity (NCV) studies were 

interpreted by Dr. Elizabeth Polachek, Board-certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation, as

revealing abnormal findings. Dr. Polachek noted findings which included right greater than left 

median mononeuropathy about the wrist, i.e., CTS. The studies also revealed right ulnar 

neuropathy about the elbow and cubital tunnel syndrome.

In a July 7, 2021 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. John Schneider, a Board-certified 

hand surgeon, noted the date of injury as June 9, 2021. He related that appellant’s bilateral wrists 

were affected by CTS, and he indicated that she would not require any restrictions until after 

surgery. 

In a development letter dated July 28, 2021, OWCP informed appellant regarding the 

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

needed and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

respond. No response was received.

By decision dated August 30, 2021, OWCP found that the evidence of record was sufficient 

to establish that the employment factors occurred as described. However, it denied the claim, 

finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship 

between her diagnosed medical conditions and the accepted factors of her federal employment.

On September 19, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. In an accompanying narrative 

statement, she explained that she was informed by her physician that she had CTS and that she had 

submitted her medical documents and EMG/NCV studies to OWCP. Appellant also alleged that 

her occupational activities required flexing of the fingers and wrists, which caused her CTS.

OWCP received additional medical evidence in support of appellant’s request for 

reconsideration. In a June 9, 2021 report, Dr. Schneider diagnosed right CTS and likely left CTS. 

In a July 7, 2021 report, he noted that he had discussed the etiology of appellant’s CTS with 

appellant. Dr. Schneider related that appellant performed repetitive work activities and that she

had severe symptoms with her work activities. He concluded that appellant’s CTS had been 

exacerbated beyond normal progression by her work activities. OWCP also received copies of

Dr. Schneider’s July 7, 2021 Form CA-17. In a September 7, 2021 report, Dr. Schneider 
3

diagnosed severe right CTS with axon denervation, moderate left CTS without axon denervation, 

and mild right cubital tunnel syndrome. 

In a September 2, 2021 report, Dr. Laurie Potratz, a family medicine specialist, noted that 

appellant was seen on that date and was provided permanent work restrictions.

OWCP received copies of appellant’s June 17, 2021 EMG study.

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

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

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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,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 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.7

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.8 The opinion of the physician must be based upon a complete factual 

and medical background, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by 

3

Supra note 1.

4 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).

5 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).

6 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).

7 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).

8

I.J., Docket No. 19-1343 (issued February 26, 2020); T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008); RobertG. Morris, 48 ECAB 

238 (1996).
4

medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and 

the specific employment incident.9

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, 

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

of the work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition.10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

wrist or elbow condition was causally related to accepted factors of her federal employment.

OWCP received a July 7, 2021 Form CA-17 from Dr. Schneider, which indicated that 

appellant’s diagnosis was bilateral CTS. Dr. Schneider, however, did not opine that her diagnosed 

condition was causally related to the accepted 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.11 Accordingly, this report is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

Appellant also submitted a June 17, 2021 EMG/NCV study read by Dr. Polachek, which 

revealed bilateral CTS, right ulnar neuropathy about the elbow, and cubital tunnel syndrome. 

However, the Board has held that diagnostic studies, standing alone, lack probative value as they 

do not address whether a diagnosed condition was caused by an employment injury.

12

 Therefore, 

this evidence also is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish causal relationship between 

appellant’s diagnosed conditions and the accepted employment factors, the Board finds that she 

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.

9 D.C., Docket No. 19-1093 (issued June 25, 2020); see L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018).

10 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013); 

G.T., Docket No. 21-0170 (issued September 29, 2021); D.W., Docket No. 20-0674 (issued September 29, 2020); 

V.W., Docket No. 19-1537 (issued May 13, 2020); N.C., Docket No. 19-1191 (issued December 19, 2019); R.D., 

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

11 L.T., Docket No. 20-0582 (issued November 15, 2021); A.C., Docket No. 21-0087 (issued November 9, 2021);

D.B., Docket No. 19-0514 (issued January 27, 2020); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., 

Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

12 See P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); A.P., Docket No. 18-1690 (issued December 12, 2019); 

R.M., Docket No. 18-0976 (issued January 3, 2019).
5

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. 13

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

provide evidence or 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. 14

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.15 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

and reviews the case on its merits.16 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.17

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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

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

On reconsideration appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted 

a specific point of law and did not advance a new and relevant legal argument not previously 

considered. Thus, she is not entitled to a review of the merits based on the first and second abovenoted requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).18

The underlying issue on reconsideration is medical in nature, whether appellant’s 

diagnosed bilateral wrist or elbow conditions were causally related to accepted factors of her 

federal employment. In support of her request for reconsideration, appellant submitted newreports 

from Dr. Schneider dated June 9, July 7, and September 7, 2021 and a September 2, 2021 report 

from Dr. Potratz. Dr. Schneiderspecifically opinedin his July 7, 2021 report that appellant’s CTS 

13 Supra note 1 at § 8128(a); see S.A., Docket No. 21-0813 (issued December 27, 2021); see also P.S., Docket No. 

20-1090 (issued September 9, 2021); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).

14 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see also K.L., Docket No. 17-1479 (issued December 20, 2017); C.N., Docket No. 

08_1569 (issued December 9, 2008).

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

Supra note 10 at Chapter 2.1602.4 (February 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 2.1602.4(b).

16 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(a).

17 Id. at § 10.608(b); M.S., Docket No. 19-0291 (issued June 21, 2019); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued 

March 18, 2010).

18 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3);see R.L., Docket No. 21-0220 (issued October 19, 2021); K.F., Docket No. 19-1846 (issued 

November 3, 2020); L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019).
6

had been exacerbated beyond normal progression by her work activities. As this new evidence 

addresses the underlying issue of whether her diagnosed medical condition was caused or 

exacerbated by her employment activities, the Board finds that this report constitutes relevant and 

pertinent new evidence that was not substantially similar to evidence previously of record.

Therefore, the Board finds that the submission of this evidence requires reopening of appellant’s 

claim for merit review pursuant to the third requirement of 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).19

The Board will, therefore, set aside the October 27, 2021 OWCP decision and remand the 

case for an appropriate merit decision on appellant’s claim.

20

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a bilateral wrist 

or elbow condition causally related to accepted factors of her federal employment. The Board 

further finds that OWCP improperly denied her request for reconsideration of the merits of her 

claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

19 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see M.N., Docket No. 22-0243 (issued June 28, 2022); see also S.C., 20-1661 (issued 

May 6, 2022); J.T., Docket No. 20-1301 (issued July 28, 2021); M.J., Docket No. 20-1067 (issued 

December 23, 2020).

20 F.K., Docket No. 21-0998 (issued December 29, 2021).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 30, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. The October 27, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: September 21, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board