United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
L.M., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD
SAFETY & HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE,
Minneapolis, MN, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 10-06
Issued: July 8, 2010

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge
JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On September 30, 2009 appellant filed a timely appeal from the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs’ merit decision dated July 22, 2009 which affirmed a January 7, 2009
decision denying appellant’s claim for a recurrence of disability. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R.
§§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of the case.
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained a
recurrence of disability commencing September 9, 2008 causally related to his accepted
employment condition.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On April 15, 2005 appellant, then a 42-year-old food safety and health inspector, filed a
claim alleging that he developed multiple chemical sensitivities due to exposure to an unknown

airborne irritant while employed from 1992 to 2003.1 The Office initially denied his claim and
in a decision dated August 7, 2007 accepted allergic reaction to chemicals and contact dermatitis
due to other chemical products. Appellant did not stop work.
Appellant was initially treated by Dr. Kathy J. Liddle, a Board-certified allergist and
immunologist, from January 8 to July 23, 1998, for nasal and pulmonary symptoms which
occurred at work. She noted that appellant’s exposure to sodium hydroxide and sodium
hypochlorite caused nasal and pulmonary symptoms and recommended the chemicals be
removed from the workplace. Appellant was treated by Dr. Melody S. Franks, a family
practitioner, from August 21, 2003 to November 29, 2005 and June 20, 2006 to October 11,
2007, for recurrent blistering occurring on his lips and feet. Dr. Melody diagnosed blisters on
the feet, allergy symptoms, neck pain and depression. She opined that the rash and lesions on
appellant’s lips and headaches were related to previous chemical exposure and his chemical
sensitivity syndrome. Other reports from Dr. Deborah Otto Sunderman, a psychologist, dated
May 23, 2005 to April 18, 2006, noted appellant’s treatment for stress and anxiety due to chronic
exposure to toxic chemicals while at work from 1993 to 2003. She diagnosed post-traumatic
stress disorder. Appellant submitted a notice of personnel action dated January 27, 2003 which
indicated that he was reassigned effective January 12, 2003 from the Columbia Farms facility to
the Snow Creek meat processing plant due to reasonable accommodations for his accepted
medical condition of allergic reaction to chemicals in File No. xxxxxx608.
Thereafter, in the course of developing the claim, the Office referred appellant to a
second opinion physician.
Appellant sought treatment from Dr. Patricia Patterson, a neurologist, from August 7,
2006 to March 6, 2007, for headaches which began in 1992 secondary to chemical exposure at
work. She diagnosed vascular headaches triggered by certain odors. Appellant was treated by
Dr. Theresa G. Knoepp,2 a Board-certified dermatologist, from May 9 to 23, 2007, for erosions
and erythematous plaques with scales on his skin consistent with contact dermatitis. Dr. Knoepp
noted appellant’s symptoms began in 1992 after exposure to an unknown irritant at work and he
continued to have cutaneous eruptions within 45 minutes of beginning work and his symptoms
improved after leaving the workplace. She recommended appellant be removed from the
exposure to alleviate his illness.
On September 9, 2008 appellant filed a CA-2a, notice of recurrence of disability, alleging
that he experienced a recurrence of allergic symptoms including blisters, rashes and flu-like
symptoms on April 2, 2005 as a result of chemical exposure at work causally related to his
accepted employment condition. He indicated that he stopped work on September 9, 2008 and at
the time, he was working limited duty with restrictions.

1

Appellant initially filed a CA-2a, notice of recurrence of disability, alleging a recurrence of his previously
accepted allergic reaction to chemicals in File No. xxxxxx608. The Office developed appellant’s claim as a new
occupational disease because appellant described a new exposure to an unknown airborne irritant.
2

Dr. Knoepp served as the second opinion physician and appellant continued under her care.

2

By letter dated September 25, 2008, the Office advised appellant of the type of factual
and medical evidence needed to establish his recurrence claim and requested that he submit such
evidence, particularly requesting that appellant submit a physician’s reasoned opinion addressing
the relationship of his claimed recurrent condition and specific employment factors.
In a decision dated January 7, 2009, the Office denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence
of disability beginning September 10, 2008.
On January 15, 2009 appellant requested a telephonic oral hearing which was held on
May 12, 2009. He submitted reports from Dr. Sunderman dated July 28, 2005 and April 18,
2006 and from Dr. Franks dated November 29, 2005 and June 20, 2006, previously of record. In
an August 29, 2008 report, Dr. Knoepp noted that appellant underwent a patch test which
revealed allergies to paraben, quinoline, carba and thimerrosal and advised that exposure to these
elements in the workplace would cause breakouts, rash and blisters. She further noted that
appellant developed rashes and blisters when he was exposed to chlorine at work. On
September 6, 2008 appellant was treated by Dr. Liddle who opined that his symptoms were
secondary to occupational chemical exposures and recommended that the chemicals be removed
from the workplace. He reported working as an inspector at a hog plant for five years and in
1999 he was diagnosed with contact dermatitis. Dr. Liddle advised that most contact dermatitis
reactions improve once exposure to the offending agent is avoided. He noted appellant was on
administrative leave with resolution of his symptoms which suggested that an occupational
exposure was responsible. Dr. Liddle noted that 25 percent of all cases may become chronic
despite avoidance of allergen exposure.
In a decision dated July 22, 2009, the hearing representative affirmed as modified the
January 7, 2009 Office decision denying appellant’s claim for a recurrence of disability. The
hearing representative noted that the decision denied a recurrence commencing on or after
September 9, 2008.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
When an employee, who is disabled from the job he held when injured on account of
employment-related residuals, returns to a light-duty position or the medical evidence of record
establishes that he can perform the light-duty position, the employee has the burden to establish
by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence a recurrence of total disability
and show that he cannot perform such light duty. As part of this burden, the employee must
show a change in the nature and extent of the injury-related condition or a change in the nature
and extent of the light-duty requirements.3
The Office’s regulations define the term recurrence of disability as follows: “Recurrence
of disability means an inability to work after an employee has returned to work, caused by a
spontaneous change in a medical condition, which had resulted from a previous injury or illness
without an intervening injury or new exposure to the work environment that caused the illness.
This term also means an inability to work that takes place when a light-duty assignment made
3

Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 222 (1986).

3

specifically to accommodate an employee’s physical limitations due to his or her work-related
injury or illness is withdrawn or when the physical requirements of such an assignment are
altered so that they exceed his or her established physical limitations.”4
Causal relationship is a medical issue,5 and the medical evidence required to establish a
causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence. Rationalized medical evidence is medical
evidence which includes a physician’s rationalized medical 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 factors identified by the claimant.6
ANALYSIS
The Office accepted appellant’s claim for allergic reaction to chemicals and contact
dermatitis due to other chemical products. Appellant did not initially stop work but worked in a
full-time light-duty job. On September 10, 2008 he stopped work and claimed disability
compensation alleging that he developed allergic symptoms including blisters, rashes and flu like
symptoms as a result of chemical exposure at work which was causally related to his accepted
employment condition. In the instant case, appellant has not submitted sufficient evidence to
support a change in the nature and extent of the injury-related condition or a change in the nature
and extent of the light-duty requirements.
Appellant submitted reports from Dr. Sunderman dated July 28, 2005 and April 18, 2006
and from Dr. Franks dated November 29, 2005 and June 20, 2006, previously of record. These
reports are insufficient to establish the claim as they generally predate the period of claimed
recurrent disability and do not otherwise support that appellant would be disabled during the
claimed period due to his accepted conditions.
Appellant submitted reports from Dr. Knoepp, including an August 29, 2008 report from
Dr. Knoepp, who noted that appellant had allergies to paraben, quinoline, carba, thimerrosal and
chlorine and that exposure to these elements in the workplace would cause breakouts, rash and
blisters. However, Dr. Knoepp’s earlier reports clearly predated the claimed recurrence of
disability and her August 29, 2008 report, the most contemporaneous report with the recurrence
of disability, did not reference a specific date of a recurrence of disability nor did she note a
spontaneous change in the nature of appellant’s physical condition, arising from the employment
injury, which prevented appellant from performing his light-duty position. She did not
specifically explain why any work-related breakouts, rashes or blisters incurred on particular

4

J.F., 58 ECAB 124 (2006); Elaine Sneed, 56 ECAB 373, 379 (2005); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x).

5

Mary J. Briggs, 37 ECAB 578 (1986).

6

Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).

4

dates disabled appellant from his light duty for specific periods. The Board has found that vague
and unrationalized medical opinions on causal relationship have little probative value.7
Appellant submitted a September 6, 2008 report from Dr. Liddle who initially evaluated
appellant in 1998 for nasal and pulmonary symptoms which occurred at his workplace. He
reported working as an inspector at a hog plant for five years and in 1999 he was diagnosed with
contact dermatitis. Dr. Liddle noted that appellant’s symptoms were secondary to occupational
chemical exposures. She noted that appellant was on administrative leave with resolution of his
symptoms which suggests that an occupational exposure was responsible. However, Dr. Liddle
did not provide a rationalized opinion explaining the reason appellant’s recurrent condition and
disability was due to the accepted work injury.8 For instance, she failed to explain how appellant
experienced a spontaneous change in his accepted condition of allergic reaction to chemicals and
contact dermatitis due to other chemical products. Additionally, Dr. Liddle failed to note
specific dates of recurrences of disability nor did she note a particular change in the nature of
appellant’s physical condition, arising from the employment injury, which prevented appellant
from performing his light-duty position.
The Board further finds that the evidence does not substantiate that appellant experienced
a change in the nature and extent of the light-duty requirements or was required to perform duties
which exceeded his medical restrictions. The record does not establish that appellant’s work
exceeded his light-duty restrictions.
Appellant has not met his burden of proof in establishing that there was a change in the
nature or extent of the injury-related condition or a change in the nature and extent of the lightduty requirements after he returned to work.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof in establishing that he
sustained a recurrence of disability on or after September 9, 2008 causally related to his accepted
condition.

7

See Jimmie H. Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001); Franklin D. Haislah, 52 ECAB 457 (2001) (medical reports not
containing rationale on causal relationship are entitled to little probative value).
8

See George Randolph Taylor, 6 ECAB 986, 988 (1954) (where the Board found that a medical opinion not
fortified by medical rationale is of little probative value).

5

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 22, 2009 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: July 8, 2010
Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

6


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
M.C., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY
BENEFITS CENTER, Richmond, KY, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 19-1063
Issued: October 7, 2019

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On April 15, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a January 17,
2019 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 2 Pursuant

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

The Board notes that counsel did not appeal from OWCP’s merit decision dated December 10, 2018 which denied
appellant’s traumatic injury claim. Counsel appealed only the nonmerit decision dated January 17, 2019. Therefore,
the December 10, 2018 merit decision is not presently before the Board. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3.

to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the
Board lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of this case. 4
ISSUE
The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the
merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
FACTUAL HISTORY
On October 16, 2018 appellant, then a 46-year-old forklift operator and material handler,
filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 26, 2018, when walking
sideways between pallets in a narrow space, his left knee twisted the wrong way and popped while
in the performance of duty. The following Monday, October 1, 2018, appellant was placing boxes
on a pallet when he heard a louder pop in his knee. He did not stop work.
In a September 26, 2018 medical note with an illegible signature, diagnosed a left knee
sprain due to working on September 19, 2018.
On October 18, 2018 appellant was seen by Dr. Wallace Huff, a Board-certified orthopedic
surgeon. Dr. Huff noted joint pain in appellant’s left knee after a September 19, 2018 injury at
work. An x-ray of appellant’s left knee revealed no acute findings. Dr. Huff diagnosed left knee
derangement and recommended that appellant return to work with light-duty restrictions.
In an October 23, 2018 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report, Dr. Jon Kostelic,
a Board-certified radiologist, diagnosed a large tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus
of his left knee.
An October 26, 2018 medical report from Dr. Huff confirmed appellant’s diagnosis and
noted that appellant would need to undergo a left knee arthroscopy to repair his knee.
In a development letter dated November 1, 2018, OWCP informed appellant that his claim
initially appeared to be a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time from work and that
continuation was not controverted by the employing establishment, and thus limited expenses had
therefore been authorized. However, a formal decision was now required. OWCP advised
appellant of the factual and medical evidence necessary to establish his claim and provided a
questionnaire for his completion. It afforded him 30 days to provide the necessary information.

3

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4

The Board notes that, following the January 17, 2019 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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

In response, appellant submitted an October 30, 2018 surgical authorization request which
indicated that he would undergo three procedures on November 30, 2018. He also submitted
medical records previously considered by OWCP.
In a November 20, 2018 response to OWCP’s questionnaire, appellant remarked that the
immediate effect of his injury was a popping effect. He stated that his knee was very tight and that
he had trouble walking upwards or for long distances and that he treated the pain with ice and
bandages. Appellant also stated that there were no witnesses who observed his injury and that he
had no prior injuries or conditions related to the September 26, 2018 incident.
By decision dated December 10, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim
finding that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that his diagnosed injury was
causally related to the alleged September 26, 2018 employment incident.
OWCP subsequently received a copy of Dr. Huff’s October 26, 2018 medical report.
On December 24, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration of the December 10, 2018
decision.
By decision dated January 17, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration
of the merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). It found that Dr. Huff’s October 26,
2018 report was repetitious of evidence previously considered in the prior merit decision.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
Section 8128(a) of FECA5 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 payment of compensation at any time on his own motion or on application. 6
To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a), its
regulations provide that the evidence or argument submitted by a claimant must: (1) show that
OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advance a relevant legal
argument not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitute relevant and pertinent new
evidence not previously considered by OWCP. 7
A request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of its
decision for which review is sought. 8 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens and reviews
the case on its merits. 9 If the request is timely, but fails to meet at least one of the requirements
5

Supra note 3.

6

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

7

20 C.F.R. § 10.608(b)(3); see also H.H., Docket No. 18-1660 (issued March 14, 2019); L.G., Docket No. 09-1517
(issued March 3, 2010); C.N., Docket No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008).
8

Id. at § 10.607(a).

9

Id. at § 10.608(a); see also M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

3

for reconsideration, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without reopening the case
for review on the merits. 10
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the
merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
In his application for reconsideration, appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously
applied or interpreted a specific point of law, nor did he advance a new and relevant legal argument
not previously considered. Accordingly, he is not entitled to a review of the merits of his claim
based on the first and second above-noted requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).
Furthermore, appellant failed to submit relevant and pertinent new evidence with his
December 18, 2018 request for reconsideration. 11 The underlying issue in this case is whether he
submitted medical evidence sufficient to establish causal relationship between his diagnosed left
knee condition and the accepted September 26, 2018 employment incident. On reconsideration,
appellant submitted a copy of Dr. Huff’s October 26, 2018 medical report previously considered
by OWCP. The Board has held that the submission of evidence or argument which repeats or
duplicates evidence or argument already of record does not constitute a basis for reopening a
case.12 Consequently, appellant is not entitled to a review of the merits of his claim based on the
third above-noted requirement under section 10.606(b)(3).
The Board accordingly finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of
20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Therefore, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied
merit review.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the
merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

10

Id. at § 10.608(b); H.H., supra note 7; E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued March 18, 2010).

11

J.B., Docket No. 18-1531 (issued April 11, 2019); see L.R., Docket No. 18-0400 (issued August 24, 2018);
Candace A. Karkoff, 56 ECAB 622 (2005).
12

J.B., id.

4

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 17, 2019 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: October 7, 2019
Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

5


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
G.J., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ATHENS MAIN POST
OFFICE, Athens, GA, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 21-0528
Issued: February 1, 2022

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On February 20, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 25, 2020 merit
decision and a January 25, 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 the case. 2
ISSUES
The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed
medical condition causally related to the accepted June 25, 2020 employment incident; and

1
2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

The Board notes that, following the January 25, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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) whether OWCP properly determined that appellant had abandoned her request for an oral
hearing.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On August 6, 2020 appellant then a 54-year-old customer service supervisor, filed a
traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on June 25, 2020 a customer threw packages at
her, which scratched her right arm and caused her right shoulder and neck to become swollen. On
the reverse side of the claim form appellant’s supervisor acknowledged that appellant was injured
in the performance of duty.
Appellant submitted a statement which explained that on June 25, 2020 a customer
attempted to drop off prepaid parcels, and when she asked the customer if she had a scan sheet,
the customer became aggressive and threw parcels at appellant’s right arm. She noted that her arm
was painful and scratched.
OWCP received an undated e-mail from appellant’s supervisor, S.J, who stated that on
June 25, 2020 a coworker informed her that a customer had thrown prepaid parcels at appellant,
with one parcel striking appellant’s right forearm. S.J. related that she examined appellant’s arm,
but did not see any bruises or scratches.
OWCP received an accident report dated June 26, 2020 from the employing establishment,
which recounted that on June 25, 2020 a customer threw parcels at appellant.
OWCP received the first page of a June 26, 2020 report from Dr. Patrick B. Eagleson, an
emergency medicine specialist, noting that appellant was seen that day in a hospital emergency
department.
In a development letter dated August 24, 2020, OWCP informed appellant that the
evidence of record was insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and
medical evidence needed, including a medical report from a qualified physician providing a
medical explanation as to how the reported work incident caused or aggravated a medical
condition. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.
On September 2, 2020 OWCP received hospital records from a June 26, 2020 emergency
department visit, including diagnostic studies and a June 30, 2020 report of Dr. Eagleson.
Dr. Eagleson noted that appellant complained of right shoulder and right upper back pain after a
customer threw boxes at her the previous day. He indicated that an x-ray had been taken of her
right shoulder, which was negative, and diagnosed right shoulder and right upper back pain.
On September 5, 2020 OWCP received both pages of Dr. Eagleson’s June 26, 2020
emergency department report, which noted the prescribed medications.
By decision dated September 25, 2020, OWCP accepted that the June 25, 2020
employment incident occurred, as alleged, but denied appellant’s claim, finding that she had not
submitted medical evidence sufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related
to the accepted employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been
met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

2

On October 4, 2020 appellant timely requested a telephonic hearing before a representative
of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.
By notice dated December 7, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative informed appellant of
the time and location of her oral hearing scheduled for January 11, 2021 at 8:00 a.m. Eastern
Standard Time (EST). It mailed the notice to appellant’s last known address of record and
provided instructions on how to participate. Appellant did not appear for the hearing or request
postponement of the hearing.
Appellant resubmitted medical reports previously of record. OWCP also received a police
report dated June 25, 2020.
By decision dated January 25, 2021, OWCP found that appellant had failed to appear at
the oral hearing and had, therefore, abandoned her request. It indicated that she received 30 days
advanced notice of the hearing scheduled for January 11, 2021 and found that there was no
evidence that she had contacted OWCP either prior to or subsequent to the scheduled hearing to
request a postponement or explain her failure to appear.
LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1
An employee seeking benefits under FECA 3 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 FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time
limitation period of FECA, 4 that 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 determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the
performance of duty, it must first be determined whether a fact of injury has been established.
There are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component to be
established is that 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. The second
component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and can be established
only by medical evidence.7

3

Supra note 1.

4

F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D.
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);
Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
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).

3

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific
condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 8 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 specific employment factors
identified by the employee. 9
ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1
The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a medical
condition causally related to the accepted June 25, 2020 employment incident.
Appellant submitted a report dated June 26, 2020 from Dr. Eagleson, which related that
she was seen in the ’hospital emergency department that day for right shoulder pain and upper
back pain. OWCP received reports by Dr. Eagleson relating to appellant’s treatment at the hospital
emergency department on June 26, 2020. These reports noted that an x-ray of appellant’s right
shoulder was negative and appellant’s discharge diagnoses were right shoulder and right upper
back pain. The Board has held that pain is a description of a symptom, not a diagnosis of a medical
condition.10 Dr. Eagleson did not provide an opinion on causal relationship. The Board has held
that a medical report is of no probative value if it does not offer a n opinion as to whether the
accepted employment incident caused or aggravated the claimed condition. 11
As there is no medical evidence of record establishing a diagnosed medical condition
causally related to the accepted employment incident, the Board finds that appellant has not met
her burden of proof.
Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written req uest 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
Under FECA and its implementing regulations, a claimant who has received a final adverse
decision by OWCP is entitled to receive a hearing upon writing to the address specified in the
decision within 30 days of the date of the decision for which a hearing is sought. Unless otherwise
directed in writing by the claims examiner, an OWCP hearing representative will mail a notice of
the time and place of the hearing to the claimant and any representative at least 30 days before the
8

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 2019); Robert G.
Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).
9

T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 2020);
Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
10

See K.S., Docket No. 19-1433 (issued April 26, 2021); S.L., Docket No. 19-1536 (issued June 26, 2020); D.Y.,
Docket No. 20-0112 (issued June 25, 2020).
11

L.E., Docket No. 19-0470 (issued August 12, 2019); M.J., Docket No. 18-1114 (issued February 5, 2019); L.B.,
Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

4

scheduled date.12 OWCP has the burden of proving that it mailed notice of the scheduled hearing
to a claimant. 13 Section 10.622(f) of OWCP’s regulations provides that a claimant who fails to
appear at a scheduled hearing may request in writing within 10 days after the date set for t he
hearing that another hearing be scheduled.14 Where good cause for failure to appear is shown,
another hearing will be scheduled and conducted by teleconference. The failure of the claimant to
request another hearing within 10 days, or the failure of the claimant to appear at the second
scheduled hearing without good cause shown, shall constitute abandonment of the request for a
hearing. Where good cause is shown for failure to appear at the second scheduled hearing, review
of the matter will proceed as a review of the written record. 15 Where it has been determined that
a claimant has abandoned his or her right to a hearing, OWCP will issue a formal decision , finding
that the claimant abandoned the request for a hearing. 16
ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2
The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned her request for
a telephonic hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.
The record establishes that on December 7, 2020 in response to appellant’s timely request
for an oral hearing, a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review properly mailed
a notice of the scheduled telephonic hearing scheduled for January 11, 2021 at 8:00 a.m. EST. The
hearing notice was mailed to appellant’s last known address of record and provided instructions
on how to participate. Appellant did not call in for the scheduled telephonic hearing. She did not
request a postponement or provide an explanation to OWCP for her failure to attend the hearing
within 10 days of the scheduled hearing. The Board, thus, finds that OWCP properly determined
that appellant abandoned her request for a telephonic hearing. 17
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant has not met her burden of
proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the accepted June 25, 2020
employment incident. The Board also finds that OWCP properly determined that she abandoned
her request for a telephonic hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and
Review.

12

20 C.F.R. § 10.617(b).

13

T.R., Docket No. 19-1952 (issued April 24, 2020); A.R., Docket No. 19-1691 (issued February 24, 2020).

14

Supra note 12 at § 10.622(f).

15

Id.

16

T.R., supra note 13; A.J., Docket No. 18-0830 (issued January 10, 2019); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual,
Part 2 -- Claims, Hearings and Reviews of the Written Record, Chapter 2.1601.6(g) (October 2011).
17

Id.

5

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 25, 2020 and January 21, 2021
decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.
Issued: February 1, 2022
Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

6


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
R.S., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, PUGET
SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD, Bremerton, WA,
Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 14-1995
Issued: February 25, 2015

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge
PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge
JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On September 16, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 2, 2014
decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal
Employee’s 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 met his burden in establishing that he sustained hearing
loss causally related to factors of his employment.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On February 10, 2014 appellant, then a 74-year-old retired nuclear engineering
technician, filed an occupational disease claim, alleging that he sustained bilateral hearing loss
1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

and tinnitus in the performance of duty. He first became aware of his condition and its relation
to his federal employment on April 30, 1993. Appellant retired on May 3, 1993.
In a February 10, 2014 statement, appellant detailed his federal work history. He noted
that from 1957 to 1968 he served as a machinist in the U.S. Navy. Appellant stated that he was
exposed to the noise of steam valves for eight hours a day without hearing protection. He
advised that he worked at the employing establishment from 1968 to 1973 as a marine machinist.
Appellant advised that he was exposed to noise from the waterfront, chippers, grinders, deck
crawlers, pneumatic tools, steamers, and ventilators for eight hours a day with hearing
protection. Lastly, he noted that from 1973 to 1993 he was employed at the employing
establishment as a nuclear engineering technician. Appellant stated that he was exposed to noise
from the waterfront, ship checks, and the office environment. He advised that he used hearing
protection.
In a November 6, 2013 report, Dr. Richard Seaman, Board-certified in otolaryngology,
noted that appellant complained of hearing loss and tinnitus. He advised that appellant related
that he first noticed his hearing loss in 1993 when he retired from the employing establishment.
Appellant related that he believed his hearing loss was employment related. Dr. Seaman detailed
appellant’s employment history and noise exposure and noted that from 1973 to 1993 appellant
was not exposed to as much noise as he was in his first five years as a machinist. He diagnosed
sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus. Dr. Seaman opined that appellant’s hearing loss was a
combination of occupational noise damage and presbycusis. He noted that he did not review any
occupational testing of appellant’s hearing. An accompanying November 6, 2013 audiogram
tested decibel losses at 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 hertz and recorded losses of 5, 15, 5, and 25
in the left ear. Testing at the same levels for the right ear recorded decibel losses of 5, 10, 30,
and 40.
By letter dated March 20, 2014, OWCP requested that the employing establishment
provide comment on the statements made by appellant in regard to his claim. In an April 2, 2014
statement, the employing establishment confirmed his work history and advised that a report
would be sent to OWCP describing the source, period of exposure to noise, frequency level, and
hearing protection used. It noted that annual monitoring under the hearing conservation program
was required for appellant’s machinist and nuclear engineer positions. The employing
establishment advised OWCP of the sound level ranges in the areas where he worked.
The employing establishment also forwarded to OWCP annual audiograms it performed
as a part of its hearing conservation program. When appellant began at the employing
establishment in 1968 an audiogram tested decibel losses at 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 hertz
and recorded losses of 0, 0, 0, and 10 in the left ear. Testing at the same levels for the right ear
recorded decibel losses of 0, 0, 0, and 45. A March 31, 1993 occupational audiogram tested
decibel losses at 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 hertz and recorded losses of 10, 15, 5, and 25 in
the left ear and decibel losses of 10, 10, 15, and 55 in the right ear.
On July 17, 2014 OWCP referred appellant, together with the medical record and a
statement of accepted facts, to Dr. Thomas Mueller, Board-certified in otolaryngology, for a
second opinion. In an August 20, 2014 report, Dr. Mueller advised that appellant related that he
had been experiencing hearing loss for years. He noted that appellant experienced his most

2

significant exposure in the first five years of working for the employing establishment. On
physical examination, Dr. Mueller found that the ear canals showed no tympanic membrane
retractions, granulations, or debris pockets and no middle ear fluid. He diagnosed down sloping
sensorineural hearing loss with the right side loss being greater than the left. Dr. Mueller further
noted that in 1968 appellant was already experiencing high frequency hearing loss at 3,000, and
4,000 hertz on the right and that the left ear was normal at that time. He opined that appellant’s
hearing loss was not due to noise exposure from his federal employment. Dr. Mueller advised
that workplace noise may have been significant early on, but with hearing protection and the
short nature of the loud noise exposure from 1968 to 1973, he did not think that his hearing was
affected by such exposure. He explained that, since appellant was working, his hearing slowly
diminished in the upper frequencies in both ears and now the hearing loss appeared in lower
frequencies, which was indicative of age-related change and not workplace noise exposure. An
accompanying August 20, 2014 audiogram tested decibel losses at 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000
hertz and recorded losses of 20, 40, 20, and 50 in the left ear. Testing at the same levels for the
right ear recorded decibel losses of 20, 25, 45, and 70.
By decision dated September 2, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because the
medical evidence was insufficient to establish that his hearing loss was causally related to
workplace noise exposure.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden to establish 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 timely filed within the applicable time
limitation, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that any
disabilities and/or specific conditions for which compensation is claimed are causally related to
the employment injury.2 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.3
Whether an employee actually sustained an injury in the performance of duty begins with
an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. To establish an occupational disease
claim, an employee 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 employee.4
Causal relationship is a medical issue and the evidence generally required to establish
causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. Rationalized medical opinion
evidence is generally required to establish causal relationship. The opinion of the physician must
2

Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

3

Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).

4

R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008); Ernest St. Pierre, 51 ECAB 623 (2000).

3

be based on 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 factors identified by the claimant.5
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.6
ANALYSIS
It is not disputed that appellant was exposed to work-related noise while working as a
machinist and later as a nuclear engineering technician at the employing establishment. In its
September 2, 2014 decision, OWCP denied his occupational disease claim finding that the
medical evidence was insufficient to establish that his hearing loss was causally related to
workplace noise exposure. The Board finds that appellant has not established that he sustained
hearing loss causally related to his federal employment.
To further develop the claim, OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Mueller for a second
opinion evaluation. In his August 20, 2014 report, Dr. Mueller opined that appellant’s hearing
loss was not due to noise exposure from his federal employment. He explained that, while
appellant may have had significant workplace noise exposure from 1968 to 1973, he did not
think that appellant’s hearing was affected by this exposure due its relatively short nature and
appellant’s use of hearing protection. Dr. Mueller advised that, while working, appellant’s
hearing slowly diminished in the upper frequencies in both ears and later appeared in lower
frequencies which was indicative of age-related change and not a change due to workplace noise.
He found no basis to attribute appellant’s hearing loss to his workplace noise exposure.
Appellant has not submitted sufficient medical opinion evidence supporting that his
hearing loss was caused or aggravated by his workplace noise exposure. In his November 6,
2013 report, Dr. Seaman opined that appellant’s hearing loss was a combination of occupational
noise damage and presbycusis. He noted that he had not reviewed any occupational testing of
appellant’s hearing. This report is insufficient to discharge appellant’s burden of proof because
it is not based on a complete factual and medical background. Dr. Seaman acknowledged that he
did not review any of appellant’s prior occupational audiograms.7 This report is also insufficient
to discharge appellant’s burden of proof because it is not supported by any medical rationale
explaining why work-related noise exposure that ceased in 1993 would cause or aggravate his
current condition. In contrast, Dr. Mueller reviewed appellant’s previous audiograms of record
and explained that the pattern of hearing loss shown in his audiograms was consistent with agerelated hearing loss and not noise exposure.

5

I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); supra note 3.

6

James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991).

7

See Leonard J. O’Keefe, 14 ECAB 42, 48 (1962) (where the Board held that medical opinions based upon an
incomplete history have little probative value).

4

The Board finds that the weight of the medical evidence does not establish that
appellant’s hearing loss was caused or aggravated by work-related noise exposure. Accordingly,
the Board finds that he did not establish his claim.
Appellant may submit new evidence or argument as part of a formal 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 10.607.8
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish that he
sustained a hearing loss causally related to factors of his employment.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 2, 2014 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: February 25, 2015
Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

8

Appellant submitted new evidence to the Board on appeal after issuance of the September 2, 2014 decision.
However, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c).

5


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
R.L., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, WELLESLEY HILLS
POST OFFICE, Wellesley Hills, MA, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Michael Murray, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 21-0397
Issued: September 7, 2021

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On January 28, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a September 9,
2020 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.

ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish osteoarthritis of the
right hip and knee causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On January 31, 2020 appellant, then a 59-year-old carrier technician, filed an occupational
disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed osteoarthritis of the right hip and knee due
to factors of his federal employment, including working mandatory overtime for the first two years
of his employment, which resulted in his working 10 hours per day for six days a week, as well as
excessive walking, and heavy lifting. He estimated that, during his regular work hours, he walked
approximately eight miles and up 30 floors while carrying approximately 35 pounds. Appellant
stopped work on December 3, 2019 and returned to work on December 11, 2019.
In support of his claim, appellant submitted a December 2, 2019 x-ray scan of appellant’s
right hip, read by Dr. Wonsuk Kim, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, which revealed mild
degenerative changes without acute osseous abnormality. A December 5, 2019 x-ray scan of
appellant’s right knee, read by Dr. Brian Ellison, a Board-certified radiologist, revealed mild
degenerative changes with no acute fracture or dislocation.
Dr. Jayson Carr, a Board-certified internist, noted in a January 24, 2020 letter that appellant
had worked in his position since 2016 and that on December 2, 2019 he presented with right knee
and hip pain. On examination and review of x-ray scans of his right hip and knee Dr. Carr observed
degenerative changes and diagnosed osteoarthritis. He detailed appellant’s subsequent treatment
and opined that his osteoarthritis is exacerbated by his work duties involving carrying a satchel
weighing 35 pounds for approximately eight miles and climbing 30 floors over a six and a half
hour time frame.
In a January 30, 2020 statement, appellant asserted that he had been working in his position
since 2016 and in a typical day he spent an hour and a half in the office casing mail before he went
out on his delivery route. While delivering mail, he carried a satchel weighing approximately 35
pounds and would spend six and a half hours walking around eight miles per day and walking up
30 floors of stairs on a regular day. Appellant also noted that from 2016 to 2018 he was forced to
work overtime, which required him to work 10 hours per day, work on Sundays and to deliver
packages on holidays.
In a development letter dated February 4, 2020, OWCP advised appellant of the factual
and medical deficiencies of his claim. It asked him to complete a questionnaire to provide further
details regarding the circumstances of his claimed injury and requested a narrative medical report
from his treating physician, which contained a detailed description of findings and diagnoses,
explaining how his work activities caused, contributed to, or aggravated his medical condition. In
a separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment
provide comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding the accuracy of appellant ’s
allegations. It afforded both parties 30 days to respond.

2

On February 13, 2020 Dr. John-Paul Hezel, Board-certified in physical medicine and
rehabilitation, evaluated appellant for right hip and bilateral knee pain. He observed that x-ray
scans of appellant’s right hip and knees and confirmed the presence of primary hip osteoarthritis
and primary osteoarthritis of the bilateral knees. Appellant informed him that his symptoms of
pain worsened with walking, especially at work. Dr. Hezel reviewed his employment duties
consisting of carrying a satchel and walking eight hours per day and recommended that he not
walk for work, if possible, as this would further exacerbate his condition.
In response to OWCP’s questionnaire, on February 19, 2020 appellant attached a copy of
his January 30, 2020 statement wherein he described his employment duties. He included a
handwritten note wherein he indicated that his activities outside of work consisted of listening to
music and using the computer.
In a February 22, 2020 letter, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim,
reasoning that appellant was aware of the requirements to work up to six days per week for 10
hours a day, including Sundays and holidays from the outset of his employment. It agreed that he
was tasked with carrying a satchel weighing up to 35 pounds. The employing establishment
indicated that carriers were often instructed to take multiple breaks as needed and that appella nt
never expressed an issue or requested an accommodation prior to filing his claim. It also attached
a position description of his duties as a city carrier assistant.
By decision dated March 17, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim,
finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that his osteoarthritis of the right
hip and knee were causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.
On March 24, 2020 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s
Branch of Hearings and Review.
In a June 17, 2020 medical report, Dr. Hezel reviewed his treatment for appellant’s mild
right hip osteoarthritis and right knee osteoarthritis, including an intra-articular corticosteroid
injection to the hip. On examination and review of his x-ray scans he diagnosed mild right hip
osteoarthritis and mild right knee osteoarthritis. Dr. Hezel indicated that appellant had not been
working due to the pain in his right lower extremity and recommended that he seek a different
position that would possibly allow him to work at a desk or as a clerk.
In a June 29, 2020 medical information and restriction assessment form, Dr. Carr
diagnosed osteoarthritis and recommended that appellant limit the amount of walking, carrying,
and prolonged standing that he performed.
A telephonic hearing was held on July 8, 2020. Appellant again described his employment
duties dating back to 2016 that he believed were the cause of his conditions. OWCP ’s hearing
representative informed him of the medical evidence necessary to establish his claim and allowed
an additional 30 days to submit evidence. No response was received.
By decision dated September 9, 2020, the hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s
March 17, 2020 decision.

3

LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish 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 timely filed within the applicable
time limitation period of FECA,3 that 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.4 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. 5
To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational
disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (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 identified employment factors. 6
Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion
evidence to resolve the issue. 7 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. 8 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). 9
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish osteoarthritis of
the right hip and knee causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.
In his February 13, 2020 letter, Dr. Hezel observed x-ray scans of appellant’s right hip and
both knees and reviewed his employment duties which consisted of carrying a satchel and walking
3

S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB
153 (1989).
4

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40
ECAB 312 (1988).
5

K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014);
Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
6

R.G., Docket No. 19-0233 (issued July 16, 2019). See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Ruby I.
Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).
7

T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

8

M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018).

9

Id.; Victor J. Woodhams, supra note 6.

4

eight hours per day. He diagnosed right hip osteoarthritis and primary osteoarthritis of the knees
and recommended that appellant not walk at work as it would further exacerbate his condition.
While he provided an affirmative opinion suggestive of causal relationship, Dr. Hezel did not offer
medical rationale sufficient to explain why he believes appellant’s employment duties could have
resulted in or contributed to his diagnosed conditions. Without explaining how carrying a satchel
and walking eight hours per day caused or aggravated appellant’s osteoarthritis, Dr. Hezel’s letter
is of limited probative value. 10
In a June 17, 2020 medical report, Dr. Hezel reviewed appellant’s treatment for symptoms
related to mild right hip and right knee osteoarthritis. However, he 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.11 For this reason, Dr. Hezel’s remaining medical evidence is also insufficient to meet
appellant’s burden of proof.
On January 24, 2020 Dr. Carr reviewed appellant’s history of symptoms of right knee and
right hip pain and his employment duties dating back to 2016. On examination and review of
x-ray scans of appellant’s right hip and knee, he diagnosed right hip and right knee osteoarthritis
and opined that appellant’s condition was exacerbated by his work duties. As stated above, without
sufficient rationale explaining how appellant’s employment duties caused or aggravated his
osteoarthritis, Dr. Carr’s January 24, 2020 opinion is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.12
In a June 29, 2020 form report, Dr. Carr diagnosed osteoarthritis and recommended that
appellant limit the amount of walking, carrying, and prolonged standing that he performed. As
also previously noted, 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. 13 For this reason,
Dr. Carr’s June 29, 2020 form report is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.
The remaining medical evidence consisted of December 2 and 5, 2019 of x-ray scans of
appellant’s right hip and right knee, respectively. The Board has held, however, that diagnostic
testing reports, standing alone, lack probative value on the issue of causal relationship as they do
not address the relationship between the accepted employment factors and a diagnosed condition. 14
For this reason, this evidence is also insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.
As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing that his right hip
and knee osteoarthritis is causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment, the
Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof to establish his claim.
10

See A.P., Docket No. 19-0224 (issued July 11, 2019).

11

S.J., Docket No. 19-0696 (issued August 23, 2019); M.C., Docket No. 18-0951 (issued January 7, 2019); L.B.,
Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
12

Supra note 10.

13

Supra note 11.

14

W.M., Docket No. 19-1853 (issued May 13, 2020); L.F., Docket No. 19-1905 (issued April 10, 2020).

5

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 his burden of proof to establish osteoarthritis of
the right hip and knee causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 9, 2020 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

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

6


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
L.H., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OFFICE OF
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION,
Jacksonville, FL, Employer
__________________________________________
Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Docket No. 18-1787
Issued: July 29, 2019

Case Submitted on the Record

ORDER REMANDING CASE
Before:
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

On September 24, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 29, 2018 nonmerit
decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate
Boards docketed the appeal as No. 18-1787.1
On May 21, 2001 appellant, then a 50-year-old senior claims examiner, filed an
occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that lifting heavy case files aggravated his
degenerative disc disease and caused a herniated lumbar disc. OWCP accepted lumbar
degenerative disc disease at L4-5 and major depressive disorder, recurrent. Appellant returned to
modified-duty work for a brief period in 2001, but has not worked at the employing establishment
since December 5, 2001. OWCP paid him wage-loss compensation benefits placed him on the
periodic compensation rolls beginning January 27, 2002.

1

The Board notes that following the May 29, 2018 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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.

On March 26, 2003 appellant returned to part-time work as a driver for a private-sector
rental car agency. On December 7, 2004 OWCP issued a formal loss of wage-earning capacity
(LWEC) determination which found that his actual, part-time earnings fairly and reasonably
represented his wage-earning capacity and reduced his compensation.
Appellant thereafter requested modification of the December 7, 2004 LWEC
determination. OWCP last denied modification of the December 7, 2004 LWEC determination by
decision dated February 21, 2018.
On March 13, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration of the February 21, 2018 decision.
He asserted that a July 4, 2013 report from Dr. Manual Portalatin, a family practitioner, was
sufficient to support both a material worsening of his employment-related condition and total
disability.2
By decision dated May 29, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration
without conducting a merit review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.
Once the wage-earning capacity of an injured employee is determined, a modification of
such determination is not warranted unless there is a material change in the nature and extent of
the injury-related condition, the employee has been retrained or otherwise vocationally
rehabilitated, or the original determination was, in fact, erroneous.3 The burden of proof is on the
party attempting to establish a modification of the LWEC determination.4
Although appellant used the term reconsideration in his correspondence received on
March 13, 2018, he contended that OWCP committed error in its February 21, 2018 decision
because Dr. Portalatin’s July 4, 2013 report was sufficient to support both a material worsening of
his employment-related condition and total disability. The Board therefore finds that the March 13,
2018 letter constituted a request for modification of the December 7, 2004 LWEC determination.
The Board has held that when an LWEC determination has been issued and appellant
submits evidence with respect to one of the criteria for modification OWCP must evaluate the
evidence to determine if modification is warranted.5
As OWCP improperly reviewed the case under the standard for a timely reconsideration
request, the case must therefore be remanded to OWCP for a proper decision which includes
By decision dated August 22, 2016, the Board had reviewed Dr. Portalatin’s July 4, 2013 report solely regarding
the issue of whether an attendant’s allowance should be authorized. The Board did not review this report to determine
if it established a material change in the nature and extent of appellant’s injury-related condition. Moreover, OWCP
also had not reviewed this report to determine if it was sufficient to establish a material change in appellant’s injuryrelated condition. Docket No. 15-1239 (issued August 22, 2016).
2

3

A.S., Docket No. 18-0370 (issued March 5, 2019).

4

Id.

5

L.P., Docket No. 18-1429 (March 8, 2019).

2

findings of fact and a clear and precise statement regarding whether appellant has met his burden
of proof to establish modification of his LWEC determination.6 The Board consequently remands
the case to OWCP for proper adjudication, to be followed by a de novo decision.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 29, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this order of the Board.
Issued: July 29, 2019
Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

6

See R.Z., Docket No. 17-1455 (issued February 15, 2019).

3


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
D.M., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL
FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
SOUTHWEST, San Diego, CA, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 20-0548
Issued: November 25, 2020

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On January 13, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a November 22,
2019 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 the case.3

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.

3
The Board notes that following the November 22, 2019 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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.

ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish total disability from
work for the period November 24, 2017 through January 19, 2018.
FACTUAL HISTORY
This case has previously been before the Board.4 The facts and circumstances as set forth
in the Board’s prior order are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are set forth
below.
On August 28, 2017 appellant, then a 46-year-old air conditioning mechanic, filed a
traumatic injury claim, (Form CA-1) alleging that, as he was leaving the jobsite after a training
session, he rolled his right ankle on an uneven edge of the driveway and fell forward on hard
compacted dirt, reinjuring his neck and right shoulder while in the performance of duty. OWCP
assigned the case File No. xxxxxx721 and accepted right ankle sprain.5
On December 20, 2017 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability
during the period November 24 through December 22, 2017. He filed a subsequent Form CA-7
on January 8, 2018 claiming compensation for disability during the period December 23, 2017
through January 5, 2018. On January 16, 2018 appellant filed another Form CA-7 claiming
compensation for disability for the period January 6 through 19, 2018.
By decision dated January 30, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claims for compensation
for the period commencing November 24, 2017 and continuing.
On February 6, 2018 appellant, through counsel, requested a hearing before a
representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, which was held on July 5, 2018.
By decision dated August 28, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the
January 30, 2018 denial of appellant’s claim for disability compensation for the period
November 24, 2017 through January 19, 2018. He indicated that he had reviewed OWCP File
Nos. xxxxxx721 and xxxxxx230 in rendering his decision and concluded that the medical evidence
of record was insufficient to establish that the claimed disability was caused by the August 22,
2017 employment injury.
Appellant, through counsel, filed an appeal with the Board on December 3, 2018. In
correspondence dated May 22, 2019, counsel requested that the acceptance of the claim be
expanded to include the conditions of cervical spondylosis, and bilateral carpal and cubital tunnel
syndrome.

4

Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 19-0340 (issued October 22, 2019).

5
On June 2, 2017 appellant had filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1), alleging that on May 25, 2017 he
injured his right shoulder, arm, and neck in the performance of duty. OWCP assigned that claim File No. xxxxxx230
and accepted it for right shoulder joint sprain and cervical disc displacement. Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx230
appellant received intermittent continuation of pay from May 2 through July 20, 2017. On July 27, 2017 he accepted
a temporary light-duty job.

2

By order dated October 22, 2019, the Board set aside the August 28, 2018 decision. The
Board noted that the record before the Board did not contain the evidence from the May 25, 2017
traumatic injury claim, OWCP File No. xxxxxx230, which precluded a full and proper adjudication
of the claim for disability. The Board remanded the case for OWCP to administratively combine
File Nos. xxxxxx230 and xxxxxx721, to be followed by an appropriate decision.6
In further support of his claim appellant submitted an October 26, 2017 treatment note in
which Dr. Connor Telles, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, noted appellant’s two employment
injuries and recounted his complaint of neck pain with radicular symptoms that radiated into his
upper extremities. Dr. Telles described physical examination findings and reviewed diagnostic
studies, noting that disc degeneration was shown on both x-ray and magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) scan studies. He diagnosed cervicalgia, cervical radiculopathy, pain in right shoulder, and
spinal stenosis of the cervical region. Dr. Telles recommended an upper extremity
electromyogram and nerve conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) study and referrals for pain
management and evaluation of rotator cuff pathology. On a return to work form, he indicated that
appellant was temporarily totally disabled from work, noting that appellant was pending further
testing and evaluation.
On a November 29, 2017 return to work statement, Dr. Telles indicated that appellant was
seen that day, and studies were pending.
An upper extremity EMG/NCV study was performed on December 11, 2017 by Dr. Jeryl
Wiens, a Board-certified physiatrist. Reported findings were consistent with median neuropathy
at the wrist bilaterally, consistent with carpal tunnel syndrome, and across the elbows bilaterally,
consistent with cubital tunnel syndrome. The study was also suggestive of right C6-7 radiculitis.
In a return to work statement of even date, Dr. Wiens advised that appellant was seen that day.
A December 20, 2017 MRI scan of the cervical spine demonstrated a disc herniation at C56 and evidence of a perineural root sleeve cyst at C6-7 and C7-T1.
On December 21, 2017 Dr. Telles, advised that appellant was pending surgical consult
regarding his carpal and cubital tunnel pathology, and pending consults for pain management and
his right shoulder. She opined that appellant had difficulty with lifting and repetitive activities.
On a return to work form dated January 9, 2018, Dr. Julia Lee, Board-certified in
orthopedic surgery advised that, if no modified work was available, appellant was totally disabled.
She indicated that appellant could not lift greater than 10 pounds with his right arm, with no
forceful pushing, pulling, gripping, or twisting with the right arm.
Upon return of the case record OWCP administratively combined OWCP File Nos.
xxxxxx721 and xxxxxx230, with the former serving as the master file number. By decision dated
November 22, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the January 30, 2018 decision,
finding that the medical evidence in both case files was insufficient to establish that appellant was
disabled from work during the period November 24, 2017 through January 19, 2018 causally
related to his accepted employment injuries.

6

Supra note 4.

3

LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under FECA7 has the burden of proof to establish the
essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial
evidence, including the fact 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 period of
FECA, that 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.8 These are the essential elements of every compensation claim regardless of whether the
claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.9
Under FECA, the term “disability” means the incapacity, because of an employment injury,
to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury.10 Disability is thus not
synonymous with physical impairment, which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn
wages. An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to a federal employment
injury, but who nevertheless has the capacity to earn the wages he or she was receiving at the time
of injury, has no disability as that term is used in FECA.11
For each period of disability claimed, the employee has the burden of proof to establish
that he or she was disabled from work as a result of the accepted employment injury.12 Whether a
particular injury causes an employee to become disabled from work, and the duration of that
disability, are medical issues that must be proven by a preponderance of reliable, probative and
substantial medical opinion evidence.13
The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of
medical evidence directly addressing the specific dates of disability for which compensation is
claimed. To do so, would essentially allow an employee to self-certify their disability and
entitlement to compensation.14
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish total disability
from work for the period November 24, 2017 through January 19, 2018.
7

Supra note 2.

8

A.B., Docket No. 18-0834 (issued June 11, 2020); N.S., 59 ECAB 422 (2008).

9

Id.

10

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); see J.M., Docket No. 18-0763 (issued April 29, 2020); B.K., Docket No. 18-0386 (issued
September 14, 2018).
11

See B.C., Docket No. 18-0692 (issued June 5, 2020).

12

See C.E., Docket No. 19-1617 (issued June 3, 2020).

13

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); see W.C., Docket No. 19-1740 (issued June 4, 2020); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB
291 (2001).
14

J.K., Docket No. 19-0488 (issued June 5, 2020); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 (2005).

4

In reports dated October 26, November 29, and December 21, 2017, Dr. Telles diagnosed
cervicalgia, cervical radiculopathy, pain in right shoulder, and spinal stenosis of the cervical
region. He indicated that appellant was temporarily totally disabled and advised that further
studies and evaluations were needed. Dr. Telles offered no opinion as to whether appellant’s
accepted conditions were the cause of his disability. The Board has held that medical evidence
that does not provide an opinion regarding whether a period of disability is due to an accepted
employment condition is insufficient to establish a claim.15 Dr. Telles did not provide rationale
explaining how or why he was disabled from work. Consequently, his report is insufficient to
meet appellant’s burden of proof.16
The record also contains a December 11, 2017 upper extremity EMG/NCV study and a
December 20, 2017 MRI scan of the cervical spine. The Board has held, however, that diagnostic
studies, standing alone, lack probative value on the issue of causal relationship as they do not
address whether the accepted employment injuries resulted in appellant’s period of disability on
specific dates.17
As noted, appellant did not provide medical evidence containing a rationalized opinion
establishing that he was disabled from work from November 24, 2017 through January 19, 2018
causally related to either the May 25 or August 22, employment injuries. Appellant thus has not
met his burden of proof.18
On appeal counsel disagreed with OWCP’s decision arguing that the “claim was accepted
for cervical disc displacement.” As explained above, appellant has not met his burden of proof to
establish that he was disabled from November 24, 2017 through January 19, 2018 causally related
to any of his employment injuries.
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 and 20 C.F.R.
§§ 10.605 through 10.607.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish total disability
from work for the period November 24, 2017 through January 19, 2018.

15

L.L., Docket No. 19-1794 (issued October 2, 2020); C.R., Docket No. 19-1427 (issued January 3, 2020).

16

Id.

17

O.C., Docket No. 20-0514 (issued October 8, 2020); R.J., Docket No. 19-0179 (issued May 26, 2020).

18

L.L., supra note 15; E.M., Docket No. 18-0454 (issued February 20, 2020).

5

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 22, 2019 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: November 25, 2020
Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

6