United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, LOMA LINDA POST 

OFFICE, Loma Linda, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0005

Issued: February 6, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Brett Elliot Blumstein, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 1, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an August 9, 

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 knee 

condition causally related to the accepted January 9, 2019 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 11, 2019 appellant, then a 53-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 9, 2019 he injured a muscle in the back of his right 

leg getting in and out of his long life vehicle (LLV) while in the performance of duty. He stopped 

work on January 11, 2019.

In a statement dated January 15, 2019, appellant related that when he climbed into his LLV 

on January 9, 2019 he felt something slip on the right side of his leg.

In a work status report dated January 10, 2019, Dr. Mikaela Bianca Lewis, an osteopath, 

advised that appellant could perform modified work from January 10 to 18, 2019 and return to his 

usual employment on January 19, 2019. In a January 17, 2019 work status report, Dr. Dana Robert 

Johnson, who specializes in occupational medicine, advised that appellant could perform modified 

employment through February 7, 2019. 

In an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated January 18, 2019, Dr. Johnson 

diagnosed right knee joint pain and advised that appellant could perform light duty beginning 

January 17, 2019. In a narrative report of even date, he obtained a history of appellant 

experiencing a slipping sensation in his right knee getting into his work vehicle. Dr. Johnson noted 

that he had experienced mild chronic knee pain for months, but that the pain became severe after 

the incident of him getting in the truck. He noted that given the information to date, he could not 

comment on causation and diagnosed right knee joint pain.

In a development letter dated February 1, 2019, OWCP requested that appellant submit 

further factual and medical information in support of his claim, included a detailed report from his 

attending physician providing a diagnosis and explaining how the identified employment incident 

caused or aggravated a diagnosed condition. It afforded him 30 days to provide the requested 

information.

In a February 7, 2019 form report, Dr. Johnson indicated that appellant had sustained an 

injury on January 9, 2019 at work. He diagnosed right knee joint pain. Dr. Johnson advised that 

appellant should perform modified duty through March 4, 2019.3

By decision dated March 6, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim. It 

found that he had factually established the occurrence of the January 9, 2019 employment incident,

but had not submitted medical evidence containing a diagnosis in connection with the accepted 

work incident.

3

In a work status report dated March 4 and 29, and May 3, 2019, Dr. Johnson provided work restrictions. 
3

Thereafter, OWCP received a March 4, 2019 report from Dr. Johnson, who again 

diagnosed right knee joint pain and provided restrictions. 

On March 13, 2019 appellant requested a review of the written record before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

In a form report dated March 29, 2019, Dr. Johnson discussed appellant’s complaints of 

continued knee symptoms, including buckling. He diagnosed right knee joint pain and arthritis of 

the right knee and referred appellant for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan.

An MRI scan of the right knee, obtained on April 10, 2019, demonstrated a tear of the 

lateral meniscus, a tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus, and a small suprapatellar 

effusion. 

On May 3, 2019 Dr. Johnson provided the same history of injury and reviewed the MRI 

scan. He diagnosed current medial and lateral meniscus tears. Dr. Johnson indicated that appellant 

could perform modified work duties.

By decision dated July 26, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the March 6, 

2019 decision as modified to reflect that appellant had submitted medical evidence supporting a 

diagnosed right knee condition. The hearing representative found, however, that the evidence 

failed to establish that the diagnosed right knee condition was causally related to the accepted 

January 9, 2019 employment incident.

Thereafter, OWCP received a June 5, 2019 work status report from Dr. Bradley R. 

Hotchner, an orthopedic surgeon, finding that appellant was disabled from employment. 

On July 26, 2019 appellant underwent a right knee arthroscopy with meniscal repair.

In a form report dated August 8, 2019, Dr. Johnson discussed appellant’s history of injury 

and diagnosed current right knee medial and lateral meniscus tears, right knee joint pain, and right 

knee arthritis. He indicated that appellant remained disabled.

On September 4, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration.

By decision dated December 3, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its July 26, 2019 

decision.4

On February 10, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration. He resubmitted the progress 

report from Dr. Johnson dated August 8, 2019. In an addition to the report, Dr. Johnson related, 

“Barring any information to the contrary, [appellant’s] current condition is causally related to the 

industrial injury described above.... It is the reasonable medical opinion of this physician that 

given the work duties of [appellant] that it is reasonable to ascribe causality of the knee injury to 

work.” 

4 Appellant appealed to the Board. In an order dated February 10, 2020, the Board dismissed the appeal at his 

request. A.L., Order Dismissing Appeal, Docket No. 20-0409 (issued February 10, 2020).
4

By decision dated March 31, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its December 3, 2019 

decision. 

On March 11, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. In support of 

his request, he submitted a January 28, 2021 report from Dr. John B. Dorsey, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Dorsey obtained a history of appellant sustaining right knee pain in July 

or August 2018 when he fell at work, with continued occasional mild right knee pain. On 

January 9, 2019 appellant missed a step climbing into his LLV and twisted his leg. Dr. Dorsey 

related, “He felt as though the whole side of his right knee had slipped. He states he felt there was 

something terribly wrong that had not occurred before.” Dr. Dorsey noted that appellant felt 

intense pain in the medial area and radiating laterally. He noted that an MRI scan obtained after 

the incident demonstrated a “significant tear in the medial and lateral meniscus.” Dr. Dorsey

advised that the January 9, 2019 injury was a major injury that had caused tears in the medial and 

lateral meniscus. He provided his review of the evidence and diagnosed a right knee medial 

meniscus tear, status postoperative, and a right knee lateral meniscus tear, status postoperative. 

Dr. Dorsey asserted that the medical records and the MRI scan supported his diagnosis. He opined 

that appellant had experienced a new injury on January 9, 2019 entering his LLV, which caused 

the tears and advised that he could not have continued working without medical treatment if the 

initial injury had resulted in medial and lateral meniscus tears. Dr. Dorsey related, “Overall, my 

professional opinion is that [appellant’s] injury on January 9, 2019 was a work-related injury and 

that is the injury that caused his medial and lateral meniscus tears, which required subsequent 

surgery.”

By decision dated August 9, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its March 31, 2020 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation of FECA,6that 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.7 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.8

5 Supra note 2.

6 S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

7 T.H., Docket No. 18-1736 (issued March 13, 2019); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008).

8 T.E., Docket No. 18-1595 (issued March 13, 2019); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
5

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.9 

Generally, 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.10 The second component is whether employment incident caused 

a personal injury.11 An employee may establish that an injury occurred in the performance of duty 

as alleged, but fail to establish that the disability or specific condition for which compensation is 

being claimed is causally related to the employment incident.12

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.13 A physician’s opinion on whether there is a causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the accepted employment incident must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background.14 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 the 

specific employment incident.15

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision.

In a report dated January 28, 2021, Dr. Dorsey advised that appellant had sustained a minor 

knee injury in July or August 2018 when he fell. On January 9, 2019 his right knee slipped when 

he climbed into his LLV, and he experienced significant pain in the medial area radiating laterally. 

Dr. Dorsey diagnosed medial and lateral meniscus tears of the right knee treated with surgery. He

opined that appellant’s injury to his right knee on January 2019 was employment related, and 

resulted in the tears to the medial and lateral meniscus that required surgical repair. Dr. Dorsey 

advised that the injury in July or August 2018 was minor, noting that he could not have continued 

to work without medical treatment if he had sustained medial and lateral meniscal tears.

The Board finds that Dr. Dorsey’s report is sufficient to require further development of the 

medical evidence. Dr. Dorsey provided a comprehensive understanding of the medical record and 

case history. His opinion is supportive, unequivocal, bolstered by objective findings, and based 

on an accurate history.16 Dr. Dorsey referenced objective medical findings demonstrating injury, 

9 S.S., Docket No. 18-1488 (issued March 11, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008).

10 E.M., Docket No. 18-1599 (issued March 7, 2019); Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006).

11 Id.

12 A.D., Docket No. 20-0962 (issued April 13, 2021); Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404 (1997).

13 E.G., Docket No. 20-1184 (issued March 1, 2021); T.H., supra note 9.

14 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018).

15 B.C., Docket No. 20-0221 (issued July 10, 2020); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

16 D.B., Docket No .19-0504 (issued July 22, 2020); V.G., Docket No. 17-1418 (issued April 4, 2018).
6

expressed his opinion on causal relationship, and provided a pathophysiologic explanation as to 

the mechanism by which the accepted January 9, 2019 employment incident would have resulted 

in her diagnosed conditions. His medical opinion is therefore sufficient to require further 

development to determine whether appellant sustained a right knee injury causally related to the 

accepted employment incident.17

It is well established that proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and, while 

appellant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares 

responsibility in the development of the evidence.18 OWCP has an obligation to see that justice is 

done.19

On remand OWCP shall refer appellant, a statement of accepted facts, and the medical 

record to specialist in the appropriate field of medicine. The chosen physician shall provide a 

rationalized opinion as to whether appellant sustained a right knee condition causally related to the 

accepted employment incident. Following this and such other further development as deemed 

necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision on appellant’s claim.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision.

17 E.G., Docket No. 20-1184 (issued March 1, 2021).

18 See J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020); Jimmy A. Hammons, 51 ECAB 219 (1999).

19 See B.C., Docket No. 15-1853 (issued January 19, 2016); E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 2010);

John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 9, 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: February 6, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board