United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Vallejo, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0985

Issued: April 27, 2022

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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 15, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 30, 2020 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 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 medical condition

causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. 

1 The Board notes that, following the December 30, 2020decision, 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

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 30, 2020 appellant, then a 50-year-old lead sales and services associate, filed 

an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she injured her left shoulder due to factors 

of her federal employment. She noted that she was unaware of the etiology, but first became aware 

of her condition on August 3, 2020 and realized its relationship to her federal employment on 

October 19, 2020. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a statement explaining her job duties. She

attested that she had to tilt packages in order to place them on a scale which resulted in her using 

her left arm more than her right. Appellant also stated that she began to notice left shoulder

soreness for the first time in August 2020. 

In a development letter dated November 5, 2020, 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 submit the 

necessary evidence. 

Appellant submitted a medical report dated October 26, 2020 from Dr. Raquel Jane 

Espinosa, a Board-certified family practitioner. Dr. Espinosa related that appellant had 

experienced left shoulder pain for three months which was worsened when reaching, carrying, and 

lifting. She diagnosed left shoulder joint pain. 

OWCP received work status reports dated November 16 and 17, 2020 from Dr. Rachel 

Berry-Millett, a Board-certified family practitioner. Dr. Berry-Millet provided work restrictions 

and assessed left shoulder pain. The November 17, 2020 notes indicated that an x-ray had been 

ordered as rotator cuff tendinitis vs impingement was likely.

By decision dated December 30, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

medical evidence of record did not establish a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted 

employment factors. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish 

an injury as defined by FECA. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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 FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation period 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 

3

Id.

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).
3

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 the following: (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 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. 9 Neither the mere fact 

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

disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors, is sufficient to establish 

causal relationship.10

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. 

In a medical report dated October 26, 2020, Dr. Espinosa diagnosed left shoulder pain. 

Similarly, in her November 17, 2020 report, Dr. Berry-Millett also noted an assessment of left 

shoulder pain. The Board has held that pain is a description of a symptom, not a clear diagnosis 

of a medical condition.11 A medical report lacking a firm diagnosis is of no probative value. 12 

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

See T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); RoyL. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Victor J. 

Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

8

J.F., Docket No. 18-0492 (issued January 16, 2020); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

9 A.M., Docket No. 18-0562 (issued January 23, 2020); LeslieC. Moore, 52 ECAB 132(2000).

10 E.W., Docket No. 19-1393 (issued January 29, 2020); Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994).

11 C.S., Docket No. 20-1354 (issued January 29, 2021); D.R., Docket No. 18-1408 (issued March 1, 2019); D.A., 

Docket No. 18-0783 (issued November 8, 2018).

12 C.S.,id.; J.P., Docket No. 20-0381 (issued July 28, 2020); R.L., Docket No. 20-0284 (issued June 30, 2020).
4

These reports are, therefore, insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally 

related to the accepted employment factors.

As there is no medical evidence of record establishing a diagnosed medical condition 

causally related to the accepted factors of federal employment, 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 medical 

condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 30, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 27, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board