United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NASHVILLE 

OPERATIONS DIVISION,

Nashville, TN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0959

Issued: September 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 7, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 9, 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.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 25, 2022 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the May 9, 2022, 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.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 26, 2022 appellant, then a 53-year-old lock and dam equipment mechanic 

leader, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 25, 2022 he injured his

right knee while stepping down from a forklift while in the performance of duty. He explained 

that he felt a pop in his knee, followed immediately by a burning sensation and swelling. Appellant 

did not stop work.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a medical report dated January 25, 2022 by

Dr. Jonathan Shaver, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed a right knee sprain and 

meniscus tear and opined that the injury was work related by marking a corresponding selection 

on a form report. He recommended light-duty work with restrictions. A report of x-ray of the 

right knee of even date was read as normal.

In a medical report dated February 8, 2022, Dr. W. David Hovis, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, noted that appellant presented for a workers’ compensation injury and related 

complaints of right knee pain. He noted that appellant attributed his pain to stepping off a forklift 

at work on January 25, 2022. Appellant described the pain as a constant lateral clicking and 

burning that is made worse upon kneeling, sitting, bending, walking, and standing. Dr. Hovis 

performed a physical examination, with x-rays of the right knee, and documented a possible lateral 

meniscal tear with the possibility of chondromalacia or a concomitant meniscus tear. A magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the right knee was ordered for confirmation. He was released 

to light-duty work with restrictions.

In an MRI scan report of the right knee, dated February 10, 2022, Dr. Wayne Eberenz, a 

Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, provided an impression of a focal grade two 

chondromalacia patella due to a borderline lateral insertion of the patella tendon on the tibial 

tubercle with the presence of trace joint effusion.

In a follow-up medical report dated February 10, 2022, Dr. Hovis documented appellant’s 

ongoing right knee complaints of mild-to-moderate continuous right-side pain with stiffness,

which worsened with climbing. Dr. Hovis provided physical examinationfindings which revealed

marked lateral joint line tenderness and positive McMurray’s and Apley’s tests on the lateral side.

He reviewed the MRI scan report of even date and ruled out lateral meniscus tear and diagnosed 

focal, grade two chondromalacia patella. Dr. Hovis provided light-duty work restrictions, 

administered a steroid injection and recommended physical therapy.

In an initial evaluation report dated February 14, 2022, Laura McCallister, a physical 

therapist, indicated that appellant was employed by the Army Corps of Engineers, as an equipment 

mechanic, which required heavy work activities. She attributed his pain to factors of his 

employment, noting the symptoms began following a traumatic incident on January 25, 2022 when 
3

appellant stepped down from a forklift and felt a pop in his lateral knee, accompanied by burning 

sensation and swelling in his distal thigh. Ms. McCallister recommended therapeutic treatments. 

OWCP subsequently received physical therapy notes from Ms. McCallister dated 

February 16 through March 22, 2022.

In an April 21, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

his claim.3 It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish his claim. 

OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

OWCP thereafter received a March 29, 2022 report by Dr. Hovis, who noted that 

appellant’s right knee symptoms had improved since his last visit and that he had reached 

maximum medical improvement. In work restrictions of even date, he released appellant to full 

duty.

By decision dated May 9, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

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

diagnosed right knee condition and the accepted January 25, 2022 employment incident.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 has the burden of establishing 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, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that any disability 

and/or specific 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 determine whether an employee sustained an injury in the performance of duty, OWCP 

begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Generally, fact of injury 

consists of two components which must be considered in conjunction with one another. The first 

component to be established is that the employee experienced the employment incident which is 

3 OWCP initially issued a development letter dated March 14, 2022, which was returned to sender as it had the 

wrong address. It reissued the decision on April21, 2022.

4

Id.

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).
4

alleged to have occurred. The second component of fact of injury is whether the employment 

incident caused a personal injury and generally can be established only by medical evidence.7 

To establish a 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, based on a complete factual and medical background, supporting such a causal 

relationship.8 Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a 

physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship between the 

claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors. 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 incident

identified by the claimant.9 The weight of medical evidence is determined by its reliability, its 

probative value, its convincing quality, the care of analysis manifested and the medical rationale 

expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.10 

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted January 25, 2022 employment incident.

In his medical report dated January 25, 2022, Dr. Shaver diagnosed a right knee sprain and 

meniscus tear, and opined that the injury was work related by marking a corresponding selection 

on a form report. The Board has held that a physician’s opinion on causal relationship, which only 

consists of affirmatively marking a form, without further explanation or rationale, is of diminished 

probative value.

11

 Without an additional explanation of how stepping down from a forklift caused 

or contributed to appellant’s injuries, Dr. Shaver’s January 25, 2022 medical report is of limited 

probative value. Thus, this evidence is insufficient to establish causal relationship.

In his February 8, 2022 report, Dr. Hovis noted that appellant presented with complaints

of right knee pain and related that he sustained a right knee injury from stepping off a forklift at

work on January 25, 2022. He documented a possible lateral meniscal tear with the possibility of 

chondromalacia or a concomitant meniscus tear. However, such generalized statements do not 

establish causal relationship because they merely repeat appellant’s allegation and are unsupported 

by medical rationale explaining how the accepted employment incident caused a diagnosed 

7 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).

8

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April24, 2019); RobertG. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

9 A.S., Docket No. 19-1955 (issued April9, 2020);LeslieC. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

10 Franklin D. Haislah, 52 ECAB 457 (2001); Jimmie H. Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001) (medical reports not 

containing rationale on causal relationship are entitled to little probative value).

11 See J.R., Docket No. 18-1679 (issued May 6, 2019); M.C., Docket No. 18-0361 (issued August 15, 2018); 

CalvinE. King, Jr., 51 ECAB 394 (2000); see also Frederick E. Howard, Jr., 41 ECAB 843 (1990).
5

condition.

12

 The Board has held that a medical opinion is of limited probative value regarding 

causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale explaining how an employment activity 

could have caused or aggravated a medical condition.

13

 Thus, Dr. Hovis’ February 8, 2022 report 

is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

In his subsequent reports dated February 10 and March 29, 2022, Dr. Hovis diagnosed 

focal, grade two chondromalacia patella, noted examination findings, appellant’s treatment 

history, and provided work restrictions. However, he did not provide an opinion on the cause of 

appellant’s condition. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion on 

causal relationship is of no probative value.14 Therefore, Dr. Hovis’ remaining reports are 

insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

OWCP also received diagnostic testing reports, which included a January 25, 2022 x-ray

report, and a February 10, 2022 MRI scan of the right knee. The Board has held that diagnostic 

tests, standing alone, lack probative value on the issue of causal relationship as they do not provide 

an opinion on causal relationship.

15

 

The remaining evidence of record includes a February 14, 2022 initial evaluation report 

and physical therapy notes dated February 16 through March 22, 2022 from Ms. McCallister, a 

physical therapist. The Board has held that medical reports signed solely by a physical therapist 

are of no probative value as they are not considered physicians as defined under FECA and, 

therefore, are not competent to provide a medical opinion.16

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing causal 

relationship between his diagnosed right knee condition and the accepted January 25, 2022

employment incident, the Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof to establish his 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.

12 See V.L., Docket No. 20-0884 (issued February 12, 2021); J.B., Docket No. 18-1006 (issued May 3, 2019).

13 See V.D., Docket No. 20-0884 (issued February 12, 2021); Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017).

14 D.C., Docket No. 19-1093 (issued June25, 2020);see L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., 

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

15 See S.O., Docket No. 21-0332 (issued September 24, 2021); W.M., Docket No. 19-1853 (issued May 13, 2020); 

L.F., Docket No. 19-1905 (issued April10, 2020).

16 See 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); 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2) (this subsection 

defines a physician as surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and 

osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by state law).
6

CONCLUSION

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

condition causally related to the accepted January 25, 2022 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 9, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 27, 2022

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