United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Pittsburg, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0338

Issued: July 8, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 6, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 26, 2021 merit 

decision and a December 21, 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 an umbilical 

hernia causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment; and (2) whether OWCP 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the December 21, 2021 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to 

OWCP. 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

properly denied her request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 15, 2021 appellant, then 65-year-old rural carrier associate, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed an umbilical hernia due to 

factors of her federal employment. She explained that her physician had been monitoring her 

condition since April 2018 and referred her for an ultrasound, which raised concerns. Appellant 

noted that she first became aware of her condition and realized its relationship to her federal 

employment on April 20, 2018. She stopped work on October 4, 2021.

In an accompanying narrative statement, appellant asserted that lifting heavy packages

weighing up to 70 pounds four to six hours a day six to seven days a week and constant bending, 

twisting, stooping, and climbing caused or contributed to her diagnosed condition.

On October 1 and 5, 2021 Dr. Jean Reams, an osteopath, provided work restrictions.

In an October 19, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to establish her 

claim and provided a questionnaire for her completion. In a separate development letter of even 

date, OWCP also requested additional information from the employing establishment. It afforded 

both parties 30 days to submit the necessary information.

In an October 31, 2021 note, Dr. Alanna Gretschel, an osteopath, reported that about 3.5 

years earlier, appellant had developed periumbilical pain and diagnosed small umbilical hernia. 

She noted that appellant was required to lift up to 70 pounds at work and reported pain with heavy 

lifting.

Appellant also provided unsigned documentation of her scheduled December 9, 2021 

umbilical hernia surgery.

By decision dated November 26, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim, finding that she had not provided medical evidence establishing a causal relationship 

between her diagnosed condition and the accepted implicated employment factors.

On December 17, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. She did not submit any 

evidence or argument in support of this request.

By decision dated December 21, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration of the merits of her claim.
3

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 employment factors identified by the claimant.7

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

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

between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factor(s) must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background. 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 appellant’s 

specific employment factor(s).8

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an umbilical 

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

In support of her claim, appellant submitted an October 31, 2021 note from Dr. Gretschel

who reported that about 3.5 years earlier, she had developed periumbilical pain and diagnosed 

small umbilical hernia. Dr. Gretschel noted that appellant was required to lift up to 70 pounds at 

3

Supra note 1.

4

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

6 C.H., Docket No. 19-1781 (issued November 13, 2020); 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).

7 T.M.,Docket No. 20-0712 (issued November 10, 2020); S.C.,Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); R.H., 

59 ECAB 382 (2008).

8

J.V., Docket No. 21-1353 (issued March 21, 2022); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).
4

work and reported pain with heavy lifting. However, she did not offer an opinion on causal 

relationship. 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 on the issue of causal relationship.9 

As such, Dr. Gretschel’s report is of no probative value and is insufficient to establish appellant’s 

claim.

In notes dated October 1 and 5, 2021, Dr. Reams provided work restrictions, but did not 

provide a diagnosis. To establish personal injury, the medical evidence of record must document 

a diagnosed condition and must explain how that condition is causally related to the accepted 

factors of employment. Lacking a firm diagnosis of any condition in connection with the accepted 

employment factors, a medical report is of limited probative value and insufficient to establish

appellant’s claim.

10

 As Dr. Reams did not diagnose a medical condition, his reports are of limited 

probative value.

OWCP also received unsigned documents regarding the scheduled December 9, 2021 

hernia surgery. Reports that are unsigned or that bear illegible signatures cannot be considered 

probative medical evidence because they lack proper identification11 as the author cannot be 

identified as a physician.12

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

causally related to the accepted factors of appellant’s federal employment, 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.

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 an 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 

9

See D.V., Docket No. 21-1259 (issued March 15, 2022); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); 

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

10 A.B., Docket No. 20-1017 (issued June 11, 2021); see J.F., Docket No. 18-0904 (issued November 27, 2018); 

D.S., Docket No. 18-0061 (issued May 29, 2018).

11 See C.S., Docket No. 20-1354 (issued January 29, 2021): W.L.,Docket No. 19-1581 (issued August5, 2020).

12 C.S., id.; D.T., Docket No. 20-0685 (issued October 8, 2020); Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988).

13 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019); see also V.P., Docket No. 17-

1287 (issued October 10, 2017); D.L.,Docket No. 09-1549 (issued February 23, 2010); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).
5

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 properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the 

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

In support of her request for reconsideration, appellant did not provide any additional 

argument. The Board finds that she did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a 

specific point of law, nor did she advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by 

OWCP. Accordingly, appellant is not entitled to a review of the merits of her claim based on the 

first and second above-noted requirements under section 10.606(b)(3).18

Appellant also did not submit any new medical evidence. The underlying issue in this case 

is causal relationship, which is medical in nature. Appellant did not submit any pertinent new and 

relevant medical evidence not previously considered by OWCP. Therefore, she is not entitled to 

further review of the merits of her claim based on the third requirement under section 

10.606(b)(3).19

The Board, therefore, finds that appellant has not met any of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.

14 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see L.D., id.;see also L.G.,Docket No. 09-1517 (issued March 3, 2010); 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. 

For merit decisions issued on or after August 29, 2011, a request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP 

within one year of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, 

Reconsiderations,Chapter 2.1602.4 (September 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 2.1602.4b.

16 Id. at § 10.608(a); see also F.V., Docket No. 18-0239 (issued May 8, 2020); M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

17 Id. at § 10.608(b); Y.K., Docket No. 18-1167 (issued April 2, 2020); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued 

March 18, 2010).

18 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3); see also D.L., Docket No. 21-1142 (issued March 23, 2022); C.C., Docket No. 19-1622 

(issued May 28, 2020); M.S., Docket No. 18-1041 (issued October 25, 2018); C.N., Docket No. 08-1569 (issued 

December 9, 2008).

19 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3)(iii); D.L., id.
6

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an umbilical 

hernia causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. The Board further finds

OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 21, 2021 and November 26, 2021 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: July 8, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board