United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Coppell, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0218

Issued: June 26, 2023

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, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 1, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from July 26 and September 7, 

2022 merit decisions

1 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.

ISSUES

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

condition causally related to the accepted December 30, 2021 employment incident; and 

(2) whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish disability from work commencing 

January 3, 2022.

1 On his application for review (AB-1 Form), appellant indicated that he was appealing from a September 16, 

2022 OWCP decision. The Board notes, however, that there is no OWCP final adverse decision dated 

September 16, 2022. The last final adverse OWCP decisions of record issued within 180 days from the date of 

docketing of the current appeal are dated July 26 and September 7, 2022. See 20 C.F.R. § § 501.2(c) and 501.3.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 5, 2022 appellant, then a 52-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 30, 2021 he twisted his left knee and tweaked his 

back after delivering a package when he saw a dog in a yard and he stepped in a hole covered 

with leaves while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on December 31, 2022 and 

returned to work on the same day. 

In a letter dated January 11, 2022, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s

claim, noting that he had filed numerous claims for injuries to his knees, and that it was probable

that the present claim was nonwork related. It contended, that he had not submitted medical 

evidence to establish employment-related injury.

In a development letter dated January 20, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

establish his claim and afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

OWCP received medical evidence from Dr. Diane S. Litke, an attending orthopedic 

surgeon. In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated January 20, 2022, Dr. Litke noted a date of 

injury as September 25, 2020. She diagnosed sprain and degenerative joint disease of the knee 

due to injury. Dr. Litke advised that appellant was unable to resume his regular work.

In an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) of even date, Dr. Litke related a history 

of injury that on September 25, 2020 appellant fell into a hole. She diagnosed internal 

derangement, chondromalacia, and superficial injury of the left knee. Dr. Litke checked a box 

marked “Yes” indicating that the diagnosed conditions were caused or aggravated by an 

employment activity of stepping into a hole. She opined that appellant was totally disabled for 

the period January 20 through February 28, 2022 and advised that he could resume regular work 

on March 1, 2022.

By decision dated February 23, 2022, OWCP accepted that the December 30, 2021 

employment incident occurred, as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that his diagnosed medical condition was 

causally related to the accepted employment incident. 

Appellant subsequently filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability from 

work for the periods January 31 through February 11, 2022 and February 14 through 25, 2022.

On March 22, 2022 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review regarding the February 23, 2022 denial of his 

traumatic injury claim.

OWCP subsequently received an additional Form CA-20 report dated April 4, 2022 from

Dr. Litke who related a history of injury that on December 30, 2021, appellant fell into a hole. 

She noted her diagnoses of internal derangement, chondromalacia, and superficial injury of the 

left knee and opinion that appellant could resume light work on July 1, 2022. Dr. Litke checked

a box marked “Yes” indicating that the diagnosed conditions were caused by the employment 

activity of stepping into a hole.
3

On July 7, 2022 OWCP converted appellant’s request for an oral hearing to a request for 

a review of the written record because he failed to attend a telephonic hearing scheduled for

July 7, 2022 at 1:15 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

Thereafter, OWCP received a March 3, 2022 report from Dr. Litke. Dr. Litke provided 

her findings on physical examination of appellant’s left knee. She diagnosed chondromalacia 

patellae and unspecified internal derangement of the left knee. Dr. Litke noted that appellant had 

a chronic left knee injury that worsened due to a repeated twisting injury. She advised that she 

had increased appellant’s work restrictions and that he should proceed with a total knee 

arthroplasty.

On July 20, 2022 appellant filed an additional Form CA-7, claiming disability from work 

for the period January 3 through July 15, 2022.

By decision dated July 26, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claims for disability from 

work commencing January 3, 2022, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient 

to establish disability from work due to an accepted employment-related medical condition.

In an undated narrative report, Dr. Litke noted that, prior to the accepted December 30, 

2021 employment incident, appellant sustained two left knee injuries at work on February 1, 

2011 and November 19, 2013. He underwent a patellofemoral joint arthroplasty on 

September 16, 2015 and an arthroscopy on March 11, 2016 for scar tissue and the progression of 

arthritis to the medial and lateral components. Dr. Litke noted that appellant’s claims for these 

two injuries were closed. Additionally, she noted that appellant had been unable to work as a 

mail carrier since the December 30, 2021 work incident and had been on light duty and off work 

on an intermittent basis. Dr. Litke noted her prior diagnoses of chondromalacia patella, which

had resolved with the patellofemoral arthroplasty, and internal derangement of the knee. She

also diagnosed fibrosis of an ortho implant and full left knee arthritis. Dr. Litke related that 

appellant’s arthritis was caused by his initial injury, the December 30, 2021 employment 

incident, and his history of gout. She concluded that his left knee arthritis necessitated revision 

from partial knee to total knee arthroplasty.

By decision dated September 7, 2022, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

February 23, 2022 decision.3

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 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 

3 The hearing representative instructed OWCP to administratively combine appellant’s left leg claims assigned 

OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx711, xxxxx689, xxxxxx271, and xxxxxx708 upon return of the case record. The record 

reflects that OWCP has administratively combined OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx711, xxxxxx689, xxxxxx271, 

xxxxxx708, and xxxxxx464, with the latter serving as the master file.

4

Id.
4

limitation 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 determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. 

There are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component is 

whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident at the time and place, and 

in the manner alleged. The second component is whether the employment incident caused a 

personal injury and can be established only by medical evidence. 8

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific 

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence.9 The opinion of 

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

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 specific 

employment incident identified by the employee.10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

condition causally related to the accepted December 30, 2021 employment incident. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a series of medical reports from Dr. Litke. 

Dr. Litke diagnosed internal derangement, chondromalacia, superficial injury, and arthritis of the 

left knee. In a Form CA-20 report dated April 4, 2022, she checked a box marked “Yes”

indicating that appellant’s internal derangement, chondromalacia, and superficial injury of the 

left knee were caused or aggravated by the December 30, 2021 employment incident. The Board 

has held that reports that address causal relationship only by affirmative checkmark, without 

5 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

6 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).

7 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

8 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); 

John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

9

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 2019); 

Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

10 T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 2020); 

Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
5

medical rationale explaining how the employment incident caused or aggravated the diagnosed 

condition, are of diminished probative value.11 

Dr. Litke’s remaining Form CA-17 and Form CA-20 reports dated January 20, 2022,

found that appellant’s diagnosed conditions of sprain, degenerative joint disease, internal 

derangement, chondromalacia, and superficial injury of the left knee were causally related to his 

fall into a hole on September 25, 2020. However, she did not provide medical rationale in these 

reports explaining how the accepted December 30, 2021 incident caused or aggravated the 

diagnosed conditions.12

Likewise, Dr. Litke, in her March 3, 2022 report, and in her undated narrative report, 

opined that appellant’s diagnosed conditions were causally related the accepted December 30, 

2021 employment incident. However, she did not provide a rationalized medical explanation as 

to how the accepted December 30, 2021 incident physiologically caused the diagnosed left knee 

conditions. The Board has held that the physician must offer a rationalized explanation of causal 

relationship.

13

 The medical evidence from Dr. Litke is, therefore, insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim.

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

causally related to the accepted December 30, 2021 employment incident, the Board finds that 

appellant has not met his burden of proof. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

An employee seeking benefits under FECA14 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including that any disability or specific condition for 

which compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury. 15 For each period 

of disability claimed, the employee has the burden of proof to establish that he or she was 

disabled from work as a result of the accepted employment injury.16 Whether a particular injury 

causes an employee to be disabled from employment and the duration of that disability are 

medical issues, which must be proven by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and 

substantial medical evidence.17 

11 See E.K., Docket No. 22-1130 (issued December 30, 2022); J.O., Docket No. 22-0240 (issued June 8, 2022); 

R.C., Docket No. 20-1525 (issued June 8, 2021); D.A., Docket No. 20-0951 (issued November 6, 2020); K.R., 

Docket No. 19-0375 (issued July 3, 2019); Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340 (2003).

12 Id.

13 D.D., Docket No. 13-1517 (issued April 14, 2014).

14 Supra note 2.

15 M.C., Docket No. 18-0919 (issued October 18, 2018); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine 

Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

16 Id.; William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).

17 V.H., Docket No. 18-1282 (issued April 2, 2019); Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005).
6

Under FECA the term “disability” is defined as the incapacity, because of an employment 

injury, to earn the wages the employee was receiving at the time of the injury.18 Disability is, 

thus, not synonymous with physical impairment, which may or may not result in an incapacity to 

earn wages.19 

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed period 

of disability and an employment injury is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 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 claimed disability and the accepted employment 

injury.20

The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of 

any medical evidence addressing the specific dates of disability for which compensation is 

claimed. To do so would essentially allow an employee to self-certify his or her disability and 

entitlement to compensation.21

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

As appellant has not established that he sustained the alleged left knee condition causally 

related to the December 30, 2021 incident, he has also not established that he is entitled to wageloss compensation for an accepted work-related injury. OWCP’s regulations provide that 

benefits are available only while the effects of a work-related condition continue. Compensation 

for wage loss due to disability is available only for any periods during which an employee ’s 

work-related medical condition prevents him or her from earning the wages earned before the 

work-related injury.22 As found above, appellant has not established a work-related condition

causally related to the December 30, 2021 employment incident. He therefore has not met his 

burden of proof to establish entitlement to FECA compensation benefits.

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.

18 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); S.T., Docket No. 18-0412 (issued October 22, 2018); Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 

397 (1999).

19 G.T., Docket No. 18-1369 (issued March 13, 2019); Robert L. Kaaumoana, 54 ECAB 150 (2002).

20 Y.S., Docket No. 19-1572 (issued March 12, 2020). 

21 See B.K., Docket No. 18-0386 (issued September 14, 2018); Amelia S. Jefferson, supra note 17; see also C.S., 

Docket No. 17-1686 (issued February 5, 2019).

22 20 C.F.R. § 10.500.
7

CONCLUSION

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

condition causally related to the accepted December 30, 2021 employment incident. The Board 

further finds that appellant has not established disability from work commencing 

January 3, 2022.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 26 and September 7, 2022 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: June 26, 2023

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