United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MARKET STREET 

POST OFFICE, St. Louis, MO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0554

Issued: November 18, 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 March 4, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 13, 2022 merit 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a right shoulder 

condition causally related to the accepted April 30, 2020 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.2 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

in the Board’s prior order are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as follows. 

On May 14, 2020 appellant, then a 57-year-old distribution clerk, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 30, 2020 she sustained a right shoulder injury when she 

tripped over a container latch and fell while in the performance of duty. 3 She stopped work on 

June 13, 2020. 

In a clinical summary report dated May 27, 2020, Dr. Thomas Spiro, a Board-certified 

internist, noted that appellant had a current health issue of right shoulder contusion. 

In letters dated June 10, 2020, Dr. Katherine A. Burns, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, advised appellant that a recent right shoulder magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan 

revealed a substantial partial rotator cuff tear. She included a copy of the MRI scan. Dr. Burns 

advised that appellant could return to work on June 11, 2020 with restrictions. She also 

recommended that appellant be excused from work from June 18 through September 18, 2020. 

On June 18, 2020 appellant underwent right shoulder arthroscopic surgery. The operative 

report noted a preoperative diagnosis of right shoulder rotator cuff tear.

In a July 28, 2020 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. 

OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

Appellant submitted a May 11, 2020 right shoulder x-ray scan, which revealed high-grade 

articular-sided partial tear posterior fibers of the supraspinatus tendon along the footplate, 

moderate-grade intrasubstance partial tear of the distal myotendinous junction of the infraspinatus, 

and small moderate-grade articular-sided partial tear of the mid-fibers subscapularis tendon at the 

lesser tuberosity attachment site.

OWCP also received a June 10, 2020 progress note by Dr. Burns who reported appellant’s 

complaints of chronic right shoulder pain. Dr. Burns indicated that appellant previously had a left 

shoulder rotator cuff tear, which required surgery in June 2016, and noted that appellant had 

informed her that her right shoulder now felt the same way. 

In a July 8, 2020 report, Lynn Robbins, a physician assistant, evaluated appellant for 

continued right shoulder pain. She examined appellant and noted her right shoulder subacromial 

tenderness and limited range of motion. Mrs. Robbins diagnosed status post right shoulder 

arthroscopy, rotator cuff repair and biceps tenodesis. 

2 Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 21-0618 (issued September 27, 2021).

3 OWCP assigned File No. xxxxxx711 to this claim. Appellant previously filed another Form CA-1 on April2, 

2020 alleging that on March 27, 2020 she sustained contusions and bruises on her hands while in the performance of 

duty, to which OWCP assigned File No. xxxxxx252. 
3

In a progress note dated August 24, 2020, Dr. Burns indicated that appellant was doing 

well following right shoulder arthroscopic surgery on June 18, 2020. She indicated that appellant 

fell twice at work and landed on her outstretched right arm. Dr. Burns reported that appellant 

believed this was very likely what injured her right shoulder. She opined that appellant was doing 

well status post right shoulder arthroscopy. 

By decision dated August 31, 2020, OWCP accepted that the April 30, 2020 employment 

incident occurred as alleged, but denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim finding that the medical 

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

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

an injury as defined by FECA. 

On September 6, 2020 appellant requested a hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review, which was held on November 30, 2020.

By decision dated January 29, 2021, OWCP’s hearing representative modified the 

August 31, 2020 decision to find that appellant had established a medical diagnosis in connection 

with the accepted April 30, 2020 employment incident, but denied the claim finding that the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between the diagnosed 

condition and the accepted April 30, 2020 employment incident. 

Appellant appealed to the Board. By order dated September 27, 2021, the Board set aside 

the August 31, 2020 and January 29, 2021 OWCP decisions and remanded the case for OWCP to 

combine the present case with OWCP File No. xxxxxx252 and issue a de novo decision on 

appellant’s traumatic injury claim.

4

On January 13, 2022 OWCP administratively combined the current case with OWCP File 

No. xxxxxx252 with the current claim serving as the master file.

By de novo decision dated January 13, 2022, OWCP accepted that the April 30, 2020 

incident occurred as alleged and that a medical condition was diagnosed; however it denied her 

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

between her diagnosed condition and the accepted employment incident. It concluded, therefore, 

that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury or medical condition causally related 

to the employment incident.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 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 

4

Supra note 2.

5

Supra note 1.
4

limitation of FECA,6that 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.7 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.8

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

performance of duty, OWCP must first determine whether fact of injury has been established.9 

There are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must submit 

sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the 

time and place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit probative medical 

evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury. 10 

To establish causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant disability 

claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit rationalized medical 

opinion evidence.11 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 

the specific employment incident identified by the employee.12 

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted April 30, 2020 employment incident.

Appellant submitted reports dated June 10 through August 24, 2020 by Dr. Burns, who

provided examination findings and noted that a right shoulder MRI scan revealed a partialthickness rotator cuff tear. She indicated that appellant fell down twice at work and reported that 

appellant believed this was very likely what injured her right shoulder. Dr. Burns diagnosed right 

shoulder rotator cuff tendinitis versus tear. She, however, did not provide her own opinion 

addressing the cause of appellant’s right shoulder condition. Rather, Dr. Burns merely reiterated 

6 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

7 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); 

James E.Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

8 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 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). 

9 D.B., Docket No. 18-1348 (issued January 4, 2019); S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007).

10 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); David 

Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

11 S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); S.A., Docket No. 18-0399 (issued October 16, 2018); see 

also RobertG. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

12 C.F., Docket No. 18-0791 (issued February 26, 2019); M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); 

I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).
5

appellant’s belief regarding causal relationship.13 The Board has held that medical evidence that 

does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition or disability is of no 

probative value on the issue of causal relationship.14 Therefore, these reports are insufficient to 

establish appellant’s burden of proof.

Appellant also submitted a May 27, 2020 clinical summary report by Dr. Spiro and a 

June 18, 2020 operative report. However, these reports did not offer an opinion on causal 

relationship. 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.15

Appellant also submitted a July 8, 2020 report from a physician assistant. The Board has 

held that certain healthcare providers such as physician assistants are not considered physicians as 

defined under FECA.16 Consequently, their medical findings and/or opinions will not suffice for 

purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits. 

The remaining evidence of record consists of diagnostic reports dated May 11 and 

June 10, 2020. The Board has held that reports of diagnostic tests, standing alone, lack probative 

value as they do not provide an opinion as to whether the accepted employment factors caused the 

diagnosed condition. For this reason, this evidence is not sufficient to meet his burden of proof. 17 

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing that her right 

shoulder condition is causally related to the accepted April 30, 2020 employment incident, the 

Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish her claim.

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.

13 See C.M., Docket No. 21-0435 (issued October 22, 2021).

14 R.O., Docket No. 20-1243 (issued May 28, 2021); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018); D.K., 

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

15 Id.; see also K.R., Docket No. 21-0822 (issued June 28, 2022); M.G., Docket No. 19-1863 (issued 

December 15, 2020.

16 Section 8102(2) of FECA provides as follows: (2) physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical 

psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined 

by State law. 5 U.S.C. § 8102(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims,

Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006) (lay 

individuals such as physician assistants, nurses, and physical therapists are not competent to render a medical opinion 

under FECA); see also S.S., Docket No. 21-1140 (issued June 29, 2022) (physician assistants are not considered 

physicians under FECA and are not competent to provide medical opinions); George H. Clark, 56 ECAB 162 (2004) 

(physician assistants are not considered physicians under FECA).

17 V.Y., Docket No. 18-0610 (issued March 6, 2020); G.S., Docket No. 18-1696 (issued March 26, 2019); A.B., 

Docket No. 17-0301 (issued May 19, 2017).
6

CONCLUSION

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

condition causally related to the accepted April 30, 2020 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 13, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: November 18, 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