United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Cleveland, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0512

Issued: September 7, 2021

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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 17, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 22, 2021 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

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that,following the January 22, 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to expand the acceptance of her 

claim to include additional conditions as causally related to the accepted November 28, 2020 

employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 2, 2020 appellant, then a 28-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 28, 2020 she fractured her right ankle when 

removing items from the back of her vehicle, she stepped down, heard a popping sound and 

experienced instant pain while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on November 28, 

2020 and worked intermittently thereafter.

On November 28, 2020 Dr. Thang N. Dang, a Board-certified family practitioner, treated 

appellant for right ankle pain. Appellant reported exiting her mail truck when she heard a crack 

and pop in her right ankle and foot. Findings on examination revealed diffuse tenderness on 

palpation of the right foot and ankle and minimal swelling. X-rays of the right ankle revealed 

fracture of the medial upper talus area, small avulsion fracture. Dr. Dang diagnosed right foot and 

ankle sprain and right talus avulsion fracture. He wrapped her right ankle with an Ace bandage 

and placed her on crutches. In a work release report dated November 28, 2020, Dr. Dang evaluated 

appellant for a right ankle sprain/fracture and indicated that she could return to work with 

restrictions on November 30, 2020.

Appellant was treated by Dr. Frederick P. Korpi, a Board-certified orthopedist, on 

November 30, 2020 for a right ankle injury. She recounted that on November 28, 2020 she rolled 

her ankle while stepping out of her mail truck at work. Findings on examination revealed 

tenderness to palpation of the anterior talofibular ligament, the calcaneofibular ligament, and

posterior inferior tibiofibular ligament, minimal tenderness to palpation medially, tenderness over 

the talar dome, and moderate swelling medially. Dr. Korpi diagnosed a grade three sprain of the 

unspecified ligament of the right ankle and fracture of right talus. In a work ability report of even 

date, he diagnosed sprain of unspecified ligament of the right ankle, initial encounter and other 

fracture of right talus, initial encounter for closed fracture. Dr. Korpi noted that appellant was 

unable to work from November 28, 2020 through January 4, 2021. In duty status reports (Form 

CA-17) for examinations that occurred on November 30 and December 7, 2020 and January 4, 

2021, he diagnosed sprain of unspecified ligament of right ankle, initial encounter and advised that 

appellant was totally disabled from November 30, 2020 through January 11, 2021. On 

November 30, 2020 Dr. Korpi prescribed a walking boot for appellant’s right ankle.

In a patient visit summary dated November 30, 2020, Michael C. Valentino, a physician 

assistant, diagnosed sprain of unspecified ligament of the right ankle, initial encounter, and 

unspecified fracture of right talus, initial encounter for closed fracture. Appellant reported exiting 

her truck when she rolled her ankle and heard a pop and felt a burning sensation. Mr. Valentino 

noted that appellant was off work.

A magnetic resonance imagining (MRI) scan of the right ankle performed on December 2, 

2020 revealed tears of the anterior talofibular ligament and the calcaneofibular ligament, mild 
3

sprain of the deltoid ligament, extensive subcutaneous edema, osteochondral lesion at the lateral 

talar dome, moderate tibiotalar joint effusion, mild tendinosis of the posterior tibial tendon, 

minimal tenosynovitis of the peroneal tendons, and low grade plantar fasciitis.

Dr. Korpi treated appellant in follow up on December 7, 2020 and noted that appellant 

presented on crutches with a right ankle foot brace and was non-weight bearing. He reviewed the 

December 2, 2020 MRI scan of the right ankle, which revealed an osteochondral lesion in the 

lateral talar dome and grade two ankle sprain. He diagnosed sprain of unspecified ligament of the 

right ankle, initial encounter, sprain of tibiofibular ligament of the right ankle, and osteochondritis 

dissecans of the right ankle and joints of the right foot. Dr. Korpi indicated that he would like to 

keep appellant non-weight bearing for the next four weeks due to the osteochondral lesion.

OWCP received additional evidence. In a work ability report dated January 4, 2021,

Dr. Korpi diagnosed sprain of unspecified ligament of the right ankle, sprain of tibiofibular 

ligament of the right ankle, and osteochondritis dissecans of the right ankle and joints of the right 

foot. He noted that appellant was totally disabled from work until February 8, 2021.

By decision dated January 22, 2021, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for sprain of the 

right ankle, sprain of the tibiofibular ligament of the right ankle, and sprain of the right foot. By a 

second decision of even date, it indicated that it did not accept osteochondritis dissecans of the 

right ankle and right foot and right talus and avulsion fracture as work related because appellant 

did not provide medical evidence, which contained a rationalized medical opinion explaining how 

these conditions resulted from the accepted November 28, 2020 employment injury.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

When an employee claims that a condition not accepted or approved by OWCP was due to 

an employment injury, he or she bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition is causally 

related to the employment injury.3

To establish causal relationship between the condition as well as any additional conditions 

claimed and the employment injury, an employee must submit rationalized medical evidence. 4 

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 factors identified by the claimant.5

 

3 M.M., Docket No. 19-0951 (issued October 24, 2019); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004).

4 T.K., Docket No. 18-1239 (issued May 29, 2019); M.W., 57 ECAB 710 (2006); John D. Jackson, 55 ECAB 

465 (2004).

5 T.K., id.; I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008).
4

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to expand the acceptance 

of her claim to include additional conditions as causally related to the accepted November 28, 2020 

employment injury.

On November 28, 2020 Dr. Dang treated appellant for right ankle pain and diagnosed right 

foot and ankle sprain and right talus avulsion fracture. Similarly, in a November 30, 2020 report,

Dr. Korpi treated appellant for a right ankle injury and diagnosed sprain of the unspecified 

ligament of the right ankle and fracture of right talus. However, Drs. Dang and Korpi did not offer

an opinion on causal relationship. As the Board has held, 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.6 Thus, the Board finds that these reports are insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof. 

In a work release report dated November 28, 2020, Dr. Korpi evaluated appellant for a 

right ankle sprain/fracture and indicated that she could return to work with restrictions. On 

November 30, 2020 he diagnosed sprain of unspecified ligament of the right ankle and other 

fracture of right talus and noted that appellant was totally disabled. Similarly, in duty status reports 

(Form CA-17) for examinations that occurred on November 30 and December 7, 2020 and 

January 4, 2021, Dr. Korpi diagnosed sprain of unspecified ligament of right ankle, initial 

encounter and advised that appellant was totally disabled from work. Likewise, in a work ability 

report dated January 4, 2021, he diagnosed sprain of unspecified ligament of the right ankle, sprain 

of tibiofibular ligament of the right ankle, and osteochondritis dissecans of the right ankle and 

joints of the right foot. However, Dr. Korpi offered no opinion as to the cause of these diagnosed 

conditions. An opinion that does not address the cause of an employee’s condition is of no 

probative value on the issue of causal relationship.7 As Dr. Korpi does not offer an opinion on 

causal relationship, these reports are of no probative value and, thus, insufficient to establish the 

expansion of the acceptance of appellant’s claim.

Dr. Korpi treated appellant on December 7, 2020 and January 4, 2021 and reviewed the 

MRI scan of the right ankle, which revealed an osteochondral lesion in the lateral talar dome and 

grade two ankle sprain. He diagnosed sprain of unspecified ligament of the right ankle, subsequent 

encounter, sprain of tibiofibular ligament of the right ankle, and osteochondritis dissecans of the 

right ankle and joints of the right foot. However, Dr. Korpi offered no opinion as to whether 

appellant’s osteochondritis dissecans of the right ankle and right foot and right talus avulsion 

fracture were causally related to the accepted November 28, 2020 employment injury in either 

report. 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.8 As

Dr. Korpi did not offer an opinion regarding the cause of appellant’s osteochondritis dissecans of 

 

6

See S.H., Docket No. 19-1128 (issued December 2, 2019); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); 

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

7

Id. 

8

Id. 
5

the right ankle and right foot and right talus avulsion fracture, his reports are of no probative value 

and, thus, insufficient to establish the expansion of the acceptance of appellant’s claim. 

The record contained x-ray reports; however, the Board has held that diagnostic studies 

standing alone lack probative value as they do not address whether the employment injury caused 

any of the diagnosed conditions.9 Appellant also submitted reports from a physician assistant. 

This evidence has no probative value, however, because physician assistants are not considered 

physicians as defined under FECA.10

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish causal relationship between 

the additional conditions and the accepted November 28, 2020 employment injury, the Board finds 

that appellant 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.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to expand the acceptance 

of her claim to include additional conditions, as causally related to the accepted November 28, 

2020 employment injury.

 

9

See V.H., Docket No. 18-1282 (issued April2, 2019); J.S., Docket No. 17-1039 (issued October 6, 2017).

10 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that 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. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal 

Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); S.K., Docket No. 20-1049 (issued June 28, 2021); 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).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 22, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 7, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board