United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISONS, Herlong, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1214

Issued: December 30, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, 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 August 22, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 25, 2022

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 her burden of proof to establish a right shoulder

condition causally related to the accepted May 14, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 19, 2020 appellant, then a 47-year-old information technician specialist, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she injured her right shoulder when she bent 

down to lift a computer while in the performance of duty. She noted that she was switching out 

inmate computers in a housing unit and felt sharp pain, a pulling sensation, and an electric feeling 

in her right shoulder while placing a computer onto a workstation. Appellant did not stop work.

In a medical report dated June 3, 2020, Dr. Christopher M. Dolan, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, noted that appellant related complaints of right shoulder pain, which she 

attributed to lifting a computer onto a desk at work on May 14, 2020. On physical examination of 

the shoulders, he documented pain and reduced range of motion on the right compared to the left, 

as well as clinical signs of rotator cuff pathology on the right. Dr. Dolan obtained x-rays of the 

right shoulder and clavicle and diagnosed right rotator cuff syndrome and an injury to the right 

superior glenoid labrum. He recommended physical therapy and released appellant to return to 

work-restricted duty with no reaching above shoulder height and no lifting greater than 10 pounds. 

On June 4, 2020 appellant accepted a limited light-duty job offer consistent with the 

restrictions of Dr. Dolan.

In an initial examination report dated June 11, 2020, Ross Waltz, a physical therapist, noted 

that appellant related complaints of right shoulder pain and stiffness after she lifted a computer at 

work. He recommended various therapeutic exercises and modalities.

In a July 14, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of her 

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

provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

In a July 22, 2020 response to the development questionnaire, appellant indicated that on 

May 14, 2020 she was in an inmate housing unit repairing a computer. She related that when she 

lifted the computer to place it onto a workstation, she felt a sharp pain in her right shoulder and 

neck. Appellant denied any prior injuries or conditions involving her right shoulder.

Appellant underwent additional physical therapy June 17 through July 30, 2020.

In a report dated August 12, 2020, Dr. Dolan indicated that appellant had responded well 

to physical therapy. He performed a physical examination of her right shoulder, which revealed 

full range of motion, good rotator cuff strength, and mild discomfort with impingement and 

O’Brien’s testing. Dr. Dolan diagnosed a work-related right shoulder strain and possible rotator 

cuff strain and recommended that appellant continue home exercises. In a separate note of even 

date, he released appellant to return to full-duty work without restrictions, effective

August 13, 2020. Dr. Dolan diagnosed right shoulder strain.
3

By decision dated August 25, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that her diagnosed medical conditions 

were causally related to the accepted May 14, 2020 employment incident.

On September 4, 2020 appellant requested review of the written record by a representative 

of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

In a note dated September 23, 2020, Dr. Dolan continued to release appellant to full-duty 

work without restrictions. He diagnosed right shoulder strain, possible superior labral tear from 

anterior to posterior (SLAP), and possible rotator cuff tear.

By decision dated January 12, 2021, a hearing representative affirmed OWCP’sAugust 25, 

2020 decision.

In a letter dated February 23, 2021, the employing establishment requested that OWCP 

grant appellant’s claim for a traumatic right shoulder injury. It enclosed a position description and 

an undated report by Dr. Dolan, who diagnosed right shoulder strain, possible partial rotator cuff 

tear or SLAP tear, and rotator cuff syndrome and opined that the conditions were caused by the 

May 14, 2020 employment incident. Dr. Dolan explained that “the rationale for the causal 

relationship is that the shoulder hurt after this work injury,” and appellant’s examination findings 

were consistent with her described mechanism of injury.

In a report dated April 14, 2021, Dr. Dolan indicated that appellant was not having pain in 

her shoulder and that her physical examination was normal. He diagnosed tendinitis of the right 

rotator cuff and potential SLAP tear and found her to be fully recovered from the injuries. 

Dr. Dolan opined that the conditions were causally related to the May 14, 2020 employment 

incident.

In a letter dated April 23, 2021, the employing establishment further requested that OWCP 

grant appellant’s claim.

On May 28, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s January 12, 2021 

decision.

In a letter dated May 18, 2021, the employing establishment further requested that OWCP 

grant appellant’s claim and enclosed duplicate copies of medical reports previously of record.

By decision dated August 12, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its January 12, 2021 

decision.

On April 8, 2022 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of OWCP’s 

August 12, 2021 decision. In support of the request, counsel submitted an April 6, 2022 narrative 

report by Dr. Dolan, who opined that lifting a computer at work caused rotator cuff tendinosis. He 

explained that lifting put a strain on the rotator cuff and the biceps labral anchor and noted that 

this was a very common mechanism of injury for rotator cuff, biceps anchor, and SLAP pathology. 

Dr. Dolan also noted that he had previously recommended that appellant undergo magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) of the right shoulder to better assess the injury.
4

By decision dated April 12, 2022, OWCP denied modification of its August 12, 2021 

decision.

OWCP continued to receive evidence, including a medical report dated April 18, 2022 by

Dr. Dolan, who noted that appellant reported a burning pain in the right shoulder for the past three 

weeks, which she attributed the May 14, 2020 employment incident. He performed a physical 

examination of the right shoulder, which revealed good range of motion and strength, slightly 

limited forward elevation, and pain with O’Brien’s testing. Dr. Dolan diagnosed rotator cuff 

tendinitis and possible SLAP tear and recommended a right shoulder MRI. He noted that lifting a 

computer strained her rotator cuff and biceps tendon anchor and opined that the diagnosed 

conditions were causally related to the May 14, 2020 employment incident.

A report of MRI of the right shoulder dated May 14, 2022 revealed a partial thickness 

interstitial tear at the mid-insertion of the supraspinatus tendon, a cystic lesion between the 

supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscle bellies, and mild degenerative changes of the glenohumeral 

joint.

In a medical report dated May 24, 2022, Dr. Dolan reviewed the May 14, 2022 MRI and 

diagnosed tendinitis of the right rotator cuff, an injury to the superior glenoid labrum of the right 

shoulder joint, and partial thickness tear of the right rotator cuff. He opined that these conditions 

were caused by the May 14, 2020 employment incident and recommended injections and possible 

rotator cuff debridement or repair and decompression of the cyst.

By decision dated July 25, 2022, OWCP denied modification of its April 12, 2022 decision.

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 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; 

3

Supra note 1.

4 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

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).
5

(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 

casually 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 upon a complete factual 

and medical background, 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.9

ANALYSIS

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

Appellant alleged that she injured her right shoulder while lifting and placing a computer 

onto a desk while in the performance of duty on May 14, 2020. Dr. Dolan, in his reports dated 

June 3, 2020 through May 24, 2022, consistently documented this mechanism of injury and 

diagnosed right shoulder strain, rotator cuff tendinosis, and partial rotator cuff tear due to the 

accepted employment incident. In his reports dated April 6 and 18 and May 24, 2022, he explained 

that lifting put strain on the rotator cuff and the biceps labral anchor and that this was a very 

common mechanism of injury for rotator cuff pathology. 

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 for the development of the evidence and to see that justice is done.10

While the Board finds that the reports from Dr. Dolan are not fully rationalized, they are 

consistent in explaining that the accepted May 14, 2020 employment incident caused, precipitated 

and/or aggravated her right shoulder condition and are not contradicted by any substantial medical 

or factual evidence of record.11 While his reports do not provide sufficient medical rationale to 

establish an injury by which her accepted May 14, 2020 employment incident caused or aggravated 

her diagnosed conditions, they raise an uncontroverted inference of causal relationship, and thus, 

7 T.W., Docket No. 20-0767 (issued January 13, 2021); L.D., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); S.C., 

Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019).

8

I.J., Docket No. 19-1343 (issued February 26, 2020); T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008); RobertG. Morris, 48 ECAB 

238 (1996).

9 D.C., Docket No. 19-1093 (issued June 25, 2020); see L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018).

10 See A.K., Docket No. 20-1426 (issued March 8, 2021); B.C., Docket No. 15-1853 (issued January19, 2016); E.J., 

Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 2010); JohnJ. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354(1989).

11 See D.G., Docket No. 18-0043 (issued May 7, 2019). J.M., Docket No. 20-1230 (issued February 16, 2021).
6

they are sufficient to require OWCP to further develop the medical evidence.12 Further 

development of appellant’s claim is therefore required.13

The case shall be remanded for OWCP to refer appellant to a specialist in the appropriate 

field of medicine, along with the case record and a statement of accepted facts.

14

 If the physician 

opines that the diagnosed conditions are not causally related to the employment incident, he or she 

must provide a rationalized explanation as to why their opinion differs from those articulated by

Dr. Dolan. After this and other such further development deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a 

de novo decision. 

CONCLUSION

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

12 See E.J., supra note 10; RichardE. Simpson, 55 ECAB 490, 500 (2004); John J. Carlone, supranote 10.

13 See A.G., Docket No. 20-0454 (issued October 29, 2020); see A.K., supra note 10; C.G., Docket No. 20-1121 

(issued February 11, 2021); J.D., Docket No. 18-0279 (issued January 6, 2020); K.P., Docket No. 18-0041 (issued 

May 24, 2019); M.K., Docket No. 17-1140 (issued October 18, 2017); G.C., Docket No. 16-0666 (issued March 17, 

2017); JohnJ. Carlone, supra note 10; Horace Langhorne, 29 ECAB 280 (1978).

14 See A.K., supra note 10.
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 25, 2022 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: December 30, 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