United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
R.M., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION,
Fort Wayne, IN, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Docket Nos. 14-1779; 14-1935
Issued: January 7, 2015

Case Submitted on the Record

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

JURISDICTION
On August 8, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 27, 2014 merit decision of
the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). This was docketed as appeal No.
14-1779. On August 8, 2014 appellant also filed a timely appeal from a June 5, 2014 merit
decision of OWCP. This was docketed as appeal No. 14-1935. 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 these issues.
ISSUES
The issues are: (1) whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish an
occupational disease in late 2013; and (2) whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish
that he has more than 38 percent permanent impairment of his right arm, for which he received
schedule awards.

1

5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193.

FACTUAL HISTORY
On April 16, 2014 appellant, then a 61-year-old shuttle van operator, filed a claim (Form
CA-2) alleging that he sustained an occupational disease due to his work duties. He indicated
that he experienced severe pain on the right side of his neck with pain radiating into his arms.
Appellant stated that his job required him “to assist patients and wheel chairs into/out of shuttle
vans over the years, aggravating upper extremities and neck.” He indicated that on August 19,
2013 he first became aware of his claimed condition and that it was caused or aggravated by his
employment. Appellant did not stop work at the time he filed his occupational disease claim.2
In an August 2, 2013 report, Dr. Mary C. Spires, an attending physical medicine and
rehabilitation physician, stated that appellant presented complaining of significant pain in his
right elbow with edema and neuropathic pain. Appellant reported pain in his right medial
epicondyle region with some puffiness and noted that range of motion of his right arm was
limited. Dr. Spires diagnosed neuropathic pain and ulnar mononeuropathy status post revision of
transposition.
On September 27, 2013 appellant filed a claim for an increased schedule award due to his
accepted work injuries.
In a November 4, 2013 report, Dr. Walter P. Jacobsen, an attending osteopath and Boardcertified neurosurgeon, stated that appellant reported having terrible pain in his right shoulder
since suffering a work-related injury to his right arm in 1993. Appellant reported pain, weakness
and paresthesias in his right hand and pain, numbness and tingling in his right arm. Dr. Jacobsen
indicated that physical examination revealed 4/5 strength in appellant’s right biceps and triceps
and significant paresthesias in his right arm. He recommended that appellant undergo additional
diagnostic testing.3
In an April 14, 2014 report, Dr. Norman Mindrebo, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon
serving as an OWCP referral physician, determined that appellant had 17 percent permanent
impairment of his right arm under the standards of the sixth edition of the American Medical
Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (6th ed. 2009). He opined that
for appellant’s right ulnar nerve neuropathy, his right arm impairment was seven percent and for
the diagnosis of acromioclavicular joint disease status post distal clavicle excision his right arm
2

OWCP had previously accepted that appellant sustained a number of work-related conditions stemming from
several traumatic work injuries. Due to an August 19, 1993 work injury appellant sustained a right elbow contusion,
right ulnar neuropathy, right medial epicondylitis, right shoulder tendinitis, depressive psychosis, and the need for a
right shoulder Mumford procedure; due to a March 14, 2002 work injury he sustained right rotator cuff tendinitis
and post-traumatic stress disorder; and due to a May 13, 2002 work injury he sustained an exacerbation/aggravation
of right chronic ulnar neuropathy. In a February 5, 1996 decision, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for
four percent permanent impairment of his right arm and, in a January 24, 2000 decision, OWCP granted him a
schedule award for an additional 18 percent permanent impairment of his right arm. In a September 20, 2005
decision, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for an additional 16 percent permanent impairment of his right
arm. Appellant has been compensated for a total right arm impairment of 38 percent.
3

Appellant also submitted November 4, 21, December 30, 2013, February 14 and March 21, 2014 reports of
Dr. Jacobsen. However, none of the reports addressed the question of whether appellant sustained an occupational
disease in late 2013.

2

impairment was 10 percent. Dr. Mindrebo then added together the impairments for appellant’s
right arm to arrive at a total impairment of 17 percent. He further explained the rationale for his
impairment rating:
“If we try and calculate the patient’s impairments based on his Mumford distal
clavicle resection for rotator cuff tendinopathy and for upper extremity
impairment secondary to ulnar nerve issues below the elbow, we would use Table
15-21 of the A.M.A., Guides to address the ulnar nerve below the forearm. Since
this is basically a cubital tunnel syndrome that has not significantly improved,
secondary to probable scar tissue formation and constant irritation on the nerve, it
would be considered a severe sensory deficit or severe chronic regional pain
syndrome type II, secondary to the hyperesthesias and the atrophy involving the
flexor carpi ulnaris and extensor carpi ulnaris muscles of the right forearm. This
would be graded as a severe sensory deficit using Table 15-23.
“On history, the patient has constant symptoms and, on physical exam[ination]
findings, he has had the atrophy as noted, which would increase his upper
extremity impairment to [seven] percent, since this is a class 1 impairment with a
[g]rade 3 functional history score and physical exam[ination] finding score for
final grade of E or [seven] percent for that category. To address his shoulder,
Table 15-5 describes acromioclavicular joint disease for rotator cuff tendinopathy
as a class 1 injury. His major deficits are at the elbow and not the shoulder, so he
has a functional history adjustment of 1 and a physical exam[ination] finding
adjustment of 1, for a [g]rade C or 10 percent impairment of the upper extremity.
Totaling the [two] impairments, this would be a 17 percent upper extremity
impairment.”
In an April 24, 2014 letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional factual and
medical evidence in support of his occupational disease claim. In an undated statement received
on May 5, 2014, appellant indicated that his job required him to pick up laboratory coolers which
weighed about 10 pounds each as well as other packages at least 10 to 15 times per day.
In a supplemental report dated April 30, 2014, Dr. Mindrebo stated that appellant had a
severe sensory deficit involving the ulnar nerve below the mid-forearm, which was consistent
with a six percent impairment rating based on Table 15-21 of the sixth edition of the A.M.A.,
Guides. He indicated that it was a typographical error when he mentioned Table 15-23.
Dr. Mindrebo noted that appellant had had a severe sensory deficit and not a very severe deficit
and stated, “Since the severe deficit would be graded as a 6 percent upper extremity impairment,
combining the two impairments would increase [sic] his upper extremity impairment to 16
percent and not 17 percent, as previously dictated.”4
In a May 23, 2014 report, Dr. Morley Slutsky, a Board-certified occupational medicine
physician serving as an OWCP medical adviser, stated that he had reviewed Dr. Mindrebo’s
impairment rating. With respect to appellant’s right ulnar nerve/neuropathy, he opined that
4

It appears that Dr. Mindrebo inadvertently stated that the impairment rating of appellant’s right arm increased
from 17 percent to 16 percent when he intended to state that it decreased from 17 to 16 percent.

3

Dr. Mindrebo used the wrong rating table to arrive at his impairment rating, using the peripheral
nerve table (Table 15-21) when he should have used the compression neuropathy table (Table
15-23). Dr. Slutsky asserted that appellant had six percent impairment for the right ulnar nerve.
Regarding the right medial epicondylitis, he noted that there was no mention of finding a
medial epicondylitis/elbow contusion and no clinical findings related to this condition.
Dr. Slutsky felt that Dr. Mindrebo did not document findings consistent with medial
epicondylitis/contusion or properly rate appellant for these conditions. As such the final
impairment was zero percent for medial epicondylitis/elbow contusion.
Regarding the right shoulder, Dr. Slutsky opined a 9 percent right upper extremity
impairment which was 1 percent less than the 10 percent opined by Dr. Mindrebo. He differed
in opinion on Dr. Mindrebo’s physical examination grade modifier of 1, instead opining a
modifier of 0, because passive range of motion was not allowed under the sixth edition of the
A.M.A., Guides edition for rating purposes. Dr. Slutsky also assigned a grade modifier of 1 for
clinical studies for mild findings whereas Dr. Mindrebo did not assign a grid modifier for clinical
studies. His net adjustment for grade modifiers was -1, which resulted in a final grade of B, as
compared to Dr. Mindrebo’s grade C. This resulted in the one percent difference in the opined
impairment for appellant’s diagnosis of acromioclavicular joint disease status post distal clavicle
excision. Dr. Slutsky combined the impairment ratings for appellant’s right elbow and shoulder,
resulting in 14 percent right arm impairment.
In a June 3, 2014 note, Dr. Jacobsen reported that he was asked to comment on the fact
that appellant was a shuttle driver since 1999 and to provide an opinion regarding whether the
maneuvering from this job could have caused any worsening of his stenosis and worsening neck
degeneration. He stated:
“Unfortunately I can[no]t say for sure if his original injury with the increase
inactivity looking back and forth from driving had any worsening of his
degeneration as certainly motion can cause degeneration but with certainly with
[sic] that long period of time I can[no]t find any direct correlation between the
two but that is to say that it can[no]t also be ruled out. Unfortunately I do n[o]t
have a direct answer for this other than I can[no]t directly correlate his worsening
arthritis in his neck, spinal cord compression or nerve root compression to turning
his neck in order to drive the van.”
In a June 5, 2014 decision, OWCP found that appellant did not meet his burden of proof
to establish more than 38 percent permanent impairment of his right arm, for which he
previously received schedule awards. It discussed the April 14 and 30, 2014 reports of
Dr. Mindrebo and the May 23, 2014 report of Dr. Slutsky and noted that they did not establish
more than 38 percent permanent impairment of his right arm.
In a June 27, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim filed in
April 2014 as he had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish that his conditions
were due to his work as a shuttle van operator. The decision noted that none of the medical
evidence contained an opinion that appellant sustained such a condition.

4

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1
An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing the essential
elements of his or her claim including the fact that the individual is an employee of the United
States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was 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 and specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally
related to the employment injury.5 These are the essential elements of each compensation claim
regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.6
To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational
disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing the
presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) a factual
statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence
or occurrence of the disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the
employment factors identified by the claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for
which compensation is claimed or, stated differently, medical evidence establishing that the
diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant.
Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence generally required to
establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. Rationalized medical
opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on
whether there is a causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the
compensable 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.7
ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1
On April 16, 2014 appellant filed a claim alleging that he sustained an occupational
disease due to his work duties. He indicated that he experienced severe pain on the right side of
his neck with pain radiating into his arms. Appellant stated that his job as shuttle van operator
required him “to assist patients and wheel chairs into/out of shuttle vans over the years,
aggravating upper extremities and neck.” He indicated that on August 19, 2013 he first became
aware of his claimed condition and that it was caused or aggravated by his employment.

5

B.B., 59 ECAB 234 (2007); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989).

6

See Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992, 994 (1990); Ruthie M. Evans, 41 ECAB 416, 423-25 (1990). A traumatic
injury refers to injury caused by a specific event or incident or series of incidents occurring within a single workday or
work shift whereas an occupational disease refers to an injury produced by employment factors which occur or are
present over a period longer than a single workday or work shift. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee), (q); Brady L. Fowler, 44 ECAB
343, 351 (1992).
7

See Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730, 741-42 (1990).

5

The Board finds that appellant failed to submit sufficient medical evidence to establish an
occupational disease in late 2013 as alleged. OWCP had previously accepted that appellant
sustained numerous work-related injuries to his right arm, but he did not show that he sustained a
new injury to his right arm or neck in late 2013. On appeal, appellant asserted that the evidence
of record showed that he sustained such an injury, but he did not identify which medical
evidence of record supported this claim.
Appellant submitted an August 2, 2013 report in which Dr. Spires, an attending physical
medicine and rehabilitation physician, stated that he presented complaining of significant pain in
his right elbow with edema and neuropathic pain. Dr. Spires diagnosed neuropathic pain and
ulnar mononeuropathy status post revision of transposition. She did not, however, provide any
indication that appellant sustained an occupational disease in late 2013 as alleged. In numerous
reports dated between November 2013 and June 2014, Dr. Jacobsen, an attending osteopath and
Board-certified neurosurgeon, stated that appellant reported having symptoms in his right arm,
such as pain, numbness, and tingling. He also failed to provide an opinion that appellant
sustained an occupational disease in late 2013 as alleged. Dr. Jacobsen addressed the matter in
his June 3, 2014 report but he explicitly indicated that he could not provide an opinion that
appellant’s job as shuttle van operator caused a new occupational disease. He stated,
“Unfortunately I do n[o]t have a direct answer for this other than I can[no]t directly correlate his
worsening arthritis in his neck, spinal cord compression or nerve root compression to turning his
neck in order to drive the van.”
The medical evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim for a new occupational
disease and the denial is affirmed.
LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2
The schedule award provision of FECA8 and its implementing regulations9 set forth the
number of weeks of compensation payable to employees sustaining permanent impairment from
loss, or loss of use, of scheduled members or functions of the body. However, FECA does not
specify the manner in which the percentage of loss shall be determined. For consistent results
and to ensure equal justice under the law to all claimants, good administrative practice
necessitates the use of a single set of tables so that there may be uniform standards applicable to
all claimants. The A.M.A., Guides has been adopted by the implementing regulations as the
appropriate standard for evaluating schedule losses.10 The effective date of the sixth edition of
the A.M.A., Guides is May 1, 2009.11

8

5 U.S.C. § 8107.

9

20 C.F.R. § 10.404 (1999).

10

Id.

11

FECA Bulletin No. 09-03 (issued March 15, 2009).

6

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2
In a February 5, 1996 decision, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for a 4 percent
permanent impairment of his right arm and, in a January 24, 2000 decision, it granted him a
schedule award for an additional 18 percent permanent impairment of his right arm. In a
September 20, 2005 decision, it granted appellant a schedule award for an additional 16 percent
permanent impairment of his right arm. Appellant now had been compensated for a total right
arm impairment of 38 percent. On September 27, 2013 he filed a claim for an increased
schedule award due to his accepted work injuries.
The Board finds that appellant did not submit any medical evidence showing that he has
more than a 38 percent permanent impairment of his right arm, for which he received schedule
awards. The record contains impairment evaluations of Dr. Mindrebo, a Board-certified
orthopedic surgeon serving as an OWCP referral physician, and Dr. Slutsky, a Board-certified
occupational medicine physician serving as an OWCP medical adviser, which contain ratings for
permanent impairment of appellant’s right arm that are well below the 38 percent impairment for
which he has already been compensated. On appeal, appellant argued that the existing medical
evidence of record showed that he has more than 38 percent permanent impairment of his right
arm, but he did not adequately explain the basis for this argument.
In an April 14, 2014 report, Dr. Mindrebo determined that appellant had 17 percent
permanent impairment of his right arm under the standards of the sixth edition of the A.M.A.,
Guides. He opined that for appellant’s right ulnar nerve neuropathy his right arm impairment
was 7 percent and that for the diagnosis of acromioclavicular joint disease status post distal
clavicle excision his right arm impairment was 10 percent. Dr. Mindrebo then added together
the impairments for appellant’s right arm to arrive at a total impairment of 17 percent. In a
supplemental report dated April 30, 2014, he stated that appellant had a severe sensory deficit
involving the ulnar nerve below the mid-forearm, which was consistent with a six percent
impairment rating based on Table 15-21 of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides.
Dr. Mindrebo indicated that it was a typographical error when he mentioned Table 15-23 and
noted that he had recalculated appellant’s right arm impairment to be 16 percent, rather than 17
percent.
In a May 23, 2014 report, Dr. Slutsky, a Board-certified occupational medicine physician
serving as an OWCP medical adviser, stated that he had reviewed Dr. Mindrebo’s impairment
rating. He concluded that appellant had 14 percent permanent impairment of his right arm under
the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides and discussed several instances where he disagreed with
the impairment rating calculations provided by the other OWCP physician, Dr. Mindrebo. For
example, regarding the right shoulder, Dr. Slutsky opined that appellant had 9 percent right
upper extremity impairment which was 1 percent less than the 10 percent opined by
Dr. Mindrebo. His net adjustment for grade modifiers was -1, which resulted in a final grade of
B, as compared to Dr. Mindrebo’s grade C. This resulted in the one percent difference in the
opined impairment for appellant’s diagnosis of acromioclavicular joint disease status post distal
clavicle excision.
Accordingly, the Board finds appellant has failed to establish greater than 38 percent
impairment of his right arm.

7

CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish that he
sustained an occupational disease in late 2013. The Board further finds that appellant did not
meet his burden of proof to establish that he has more than 38 percent permanent impairment of
his right arm, for which he received schedule awards.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 27 and 5, 2014 decisions of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.
Issued: January 7, 2015
Washington, DC

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

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

8


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
G.R., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Birmingham, AL, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Docket No. 21-1196
Issued: March 16, 2022

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On August 2, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a June 22, 2021
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 her burden of proof to establish a medical condition
causally related to the accepted September 18, 2020 employment incident.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On November 23, 2020 appellant, then a 40-year-old assistant rural carrier, filed a
traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 18, 2020 she sustained a lower
back injury when a chair she was sitting in suddenly dropped down while in the performance of
duty.3
In a November 11, 2020 statement, appellant indicated that on September 18, 2020 she was
assigned to answer telephones. She explained that the chair that she initially sat on was very
uncomfortable and, as she was trying to get comfortable in it, the chair suddenly moved back and
she felt a disc in her back move. Appellant noted that she switched to sit in a different chair when
the chair slowly started dropping down and she felt a disc in her back move again. She indicated
that she stopped work and sought medical treatment on the alleged date of injury.
In a November 27, 2020 letter, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s
claim. It contended that the current claim was not a new injury, but was related to appellant’s
previous back injuries sustained on June 23, 2019 and April 19, 2020.
In a November 30, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence
submitted was insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical
evidence necessary to establish her claim and provided a questionnaire for completion. OWCP
afforded appellant 30 days to respond.
OWCP subsequently received a September 18, 2020 emergency room report, Dr. Anitricia
Lumpkin, an osteopath, Board-certified in emergency and internal medicine, recounted that on
September 18, 2020 appellant “tweaked” her back when she sat on a low chair at work. She noted
that appellant had a history of back injury and described the June 23, 2019 and April 19, 2020
work incidents. Dr. Lumpkin reported physical examination findings of normal range of motion
and no tenderness. She indicated that a lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan
showed degenerative disc disease at L5-S1 and no suspicious osseous lesion. Dr. Lumpkin
assessed degenerative disc disease at L5-S1. Emergency room discharge instructions noted
diagnoses of back pain and lumbar degenerative disc disease.

3

OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx425. Appellant has a previously accepted traumatic
injury claim related to a June 23, 2019 employment incident. OWCP assigned that claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx684
and accepted it for lumbar back strain. Appellant also previously filed a traumatic injury claim under OWCP File No.
xxxxxx088 for a back injury related to an April 19, 2020 employment incident. Appellant stopped work on that date
and accepted a full-time, limited-duty position on September 17, 2020. By decisions dated July 20 and November 24,
2020, and June 22, 2021, OWCP denied the claim.

2

In a September 21, 2020 after visit summary note, Dr. Shabnam Guard, Board-certified in
family medicine, noted the appellant was seen for back pain, unsteady gait, muscle weakness, and
numbness/tingling sensation of the skin.
In a September 21, 2020 return to work note, Dr. George Thomas, a family medicine
specialist, reported that appellant was seen in his office on that date and advised that she could
return to work on September 28, 2020.
OWCP also received a letter from Dr. Thomas dated July 2, 2020 who described
appellant’s June 23, 2019 and April 19, 2020 back injuries and the medical treatment that she had
received. He explained that a lumbar spine MRI scan demonstrated increased loss in disc height
in L5-S1, a mild broad-based disc bulge, and mild left foraminal narrowing. Dr. Thomas
recommended that appellant’s activities be limited to sitting and lifting up to 10 pounds.
In an epidural steroid injection procedure note dated October 1, 2020, Dr. Jacob Vella,
Board-certified in pain management and anesthesiology, noted a diagnosis of lumbar radiculitis.
An October 19, 2020 lumbar spine MRI scan report demonstrated minimal right and mild
left facet disease with minimal disc bulge at L4-5 and mild diffuse disc bulge and facet disease
without significant central foraminal canal stenosis or focal disc protrusion and a tiny old
Schmorl’s node inferior endplate of L5 with minimal diffuse posterior disc bulge at L5 -S1.
In a November 2, 2020 letter, Dr. Thomas recounted appellant’s April 19, 2020 back injury
and the medical treatment that she had received. He indicated that appellant was again seen on
September 18, 2020 and had informed him that she had injured her back again. Dr. Thomas
reported that appellant was referred to the hospital for evaluation and advised to follow-up with
physical therapy and pain management.
On December 15, 2020 OWCP received appellant’s completed development questionnaire.
Appellant indicated that she notified her supervisors, R.W. and G.T., of her injury that same day.
She also alleged that she had “agitated” her previous injury.
By decision dated January 5, 2021, OWCP accepted that the September 18, 2020 incident
occurred as alleged and that a medical condition was diagnosed ; however, it denied her claim,
finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship
between her diagnosed condition and the accepted employment incident.
On January 14, 2021 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of
OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, which was held on April 12, 2021. She testified that
she had previous problems with her back, however, her symptoms were different after the
September 18, 2020 work incident. Appellant noted that she felt something in her lower back shift
and she was unable to walk due to pain.
Appellant submitted an emergency room registration form, a triage intake form, lab results,
and a healthcare consent transfer form dated September 18, 2020.
OWCP also received a lumber spine computerized tomography scan dated September 18,
2020, which noted findings of degenerative disc disease at L5-S1.
3

A duty status report (Form CA-17) dated January 12, 2021, containing an illegible
signature, indicated that appellant could work part-time, limited-duty for 4.75 hours per day. It
described the mechanism of injury as “uncomfortable chair injured employee’s back” and noted a
diagnosis of lumbar spondylosis.
In a report dated January 27, 2021, Dr. Timothy Holt, an orthopedic surgeon, indicated that
appellant was evaluated for low back pain that radiated down his bilateral legs. He reported that
appellant sustained back injuries on June 23, 2019 and April 19, 2020 and described how the
injuries had occurred. Dr. Holt also recounted that on September 18, 2020 appellant was
answering telephones and trying to get comfortable in a chair when she felt something move in
her back. Appellant noted that she changed chairs and the chair suddenly dropped do wn. On
physical examination of appellant’s back, Dr. Holt observed positive straight leg raise, cram, and
Laseague testing bilaterally. Sensory examination was intact. Dr. Holt reported that a lumbar
spine MRI scan demonstrated degenerative disc disease at L4-5 and L5-S1. He assessed lumbar
radiculopathy, cervicalgia, lumbar spine instabilities, and intervertebral disc displacement of the
lumbar region.
In a procedure note dated February 3, 2021, Dr. Vella noted that appellant underwent a
lumbar discogram, which showed findings of lumbar pain and degenerative disc disease.
Dr. Holt also provided examination notes dated February 4 through April 21, 2021. He
reported examination findings of limited range of motion and a shuffling gait. Dr. Holt assessed
lumbar radiculopathy and other intervertebral disc degeneration of the lumbar region.
In a February 10, 2021 addendum note, Dr. Thomas described the June 23, 2019 and
April 19, 2020 back injuries and the medical treatment that appellant had received. He noted that
appellant worked for the employing establishment as an assistant rural carrier and was diagnosed
with lumbar degenerative disc disease at L4-5 and L5-S1 according to an October 19, 2020 MRI
scan and February 3, 2021 lumbar discogram. Dr. Thomas reported that “the injuries suffered as
described in the note above can cause the disc disease diagnosed by the MRI and discogram. ”
A March 15, 2021 lumbar spine MRI scan demonstrated chronically degenerated discs at
L4-5 with minimal bulge, chronically degenerated disc protruding centrally at L5 -S1, and endplate
degeneration at L5-S1.
On April 21, 2021 appellant underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusio n at L5-S1 and
discectomy. OWCP received several documents related to the surgery, including lab results, preoperative test results, an operative report, and a hospital discharge instruction sheet.
In a May 26, 2021 letter, Dr. Holt recounted that appellant was originally diagnosed with
lumbar radiculopathy at L5-S1 with disc degeneration after a June 23, 2019 work injury. He also
described that appellant “felt something twist in her lower back” when she bent down to organize
packages and climbed three flights of stairs. Dr. Holt noted that a lumbar discogram reproduced
her typical pain level at the L5-S1 level. He reported that appellant tried all conservative measures
without success and eventually underwent an anterior interbody lumbar fusion. Dr. Holt opined:
“I think that her injury is related to the September 18 th incident.” He explained that appellant “may
have been at more risk secondary to the previous injuries, but the 20 th is the straw that broke the
4

camel’s back” after a sudden jolt from a chair. Dr. Holt reported that it was “most likely” an
aggravation of the preexisting injury. He noted diagnoses of lumbar radiculopathy, other spinal
instabilities of the lumbar region, other intervertebral disc displacement in the lumbar region, and
other disc degeneration in the lumbar spine.
In a May 27, 2021 report, Dr. Holt indicated that appellant was seen for post-operation
follow-up evaluation. He recounted that appellant was walking better since the surgery , but still
had some occasional burning sensation in her lower back. On physical examination, Dr. Holt
reported limited range of motion and no clonus. Neurological examination was positive for
numbness and weakness in the bilateral arms and legs. Dr. Holt diagnosed primary arthrodesis
and recommended that appellant remain off work for another six weeks.
In a June 22, 2021 decision, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the January 5, 2021
decision.4
LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under FECA 5 has the burden of proof to establish the
essential elements of his or her claim, including that the individual is an employee of the United
States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time
limitation of FECA, 6 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. 7 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim,
regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease. 8
To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the
performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established.9 There
are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must submit
sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the

The hearing representative noted that given the injury in the present claim appellant ’s claim should be
administratively combined. The Board notes that OWCP subsequently administratively combined OWCP File Nos.
xxxxxx088, xxxxxx425, and xxxxxx684, with the latter claim designated as the master file. The Board notes that
appellant has another appeal pending under OWCP File No. xxxxxx088. That appeal will proceed under Docket No.
21-1195.
4

5

Supra note 1.

6

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).
7

G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989).

8

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).
9

S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005).

5

time and place, and in the manner alleged. 10 Second, the employee must submit evidence,
generally only in the form of probative medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident
caused a personal injury. 11
To establish causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant disability
claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit rationalized medical
opinion evidence. 12 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical
background of the employee, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported
by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and
the specific employment factor(s) identified by the employee. 13 The weight of the 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.14
In a case in which a preexisting condition involving the same part of the body is present
and the issue of causal relationship therefore involves aggravation, acceleration, or precipitation,
the physician must provide a rationalized medical opinion that differentiates between the effects
of the work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition. 15
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a medical
condition causally related to the accepted September 18, 2020 employment incident.
Appellant received medical treatment from Dr. Holt. In reports dated January 27 through
May 26, 2021, he described that on September 18, 2020 appellant felt something move in her back
when she tried to get comfortable in a chair at work. Dr. Holt discussed appellant’s previous back
injuries and provided current examination findings. In a May 26, 2021 letter, he indicated that he
thought appellant’s injury was related to the September 18, 2020 employment incident. Dr. Holt
explained that appellant “may have been at more risk” after the previous injuries. He noted
diagnoses of lumbar radiculopathy, other spinal instabilities of the lumbar region, other
intervertebral disc displacement in the lumbar region, and other disc degeneration in the lumbar
spine. Dr. Holt concluded that it was “most likely” an aggravation of the preexisting injury. The
Board has held, however, that medical opinions that are speculative or equivocal in character are

10

Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006); Edward C. Lawrence, 19 ECAB 442 (1968).

11

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

12

See S.A., Docket No. 18-0399 (issued October 16, 2018); see also Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

13

M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41
ECAB 345 (1989).
14

James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991).

15

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013).

6

of limited probative value. 16 Accordingly, these reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s
claim.
In a September 18, 2020 emergency room report, Dr. Lumpkin described that appellant
“tweaked” her back at work. She reviewed appellant’s history of back injuries and provided
examination findings. Dr. Lumpkin assessed degenerative disc disease. Likewise, the
examination notes by Dr. Vella and Dr. Guard reported diagnoses of lumbar radiculopathy and
low back pain. However, these physicians did not provide 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 or disability is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. 17
These reports, therefore, are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.
Appellant was also treated by Dr. Thomas. In a July 2, 2020 letter, Dr. Thomas described
appellant’s previous June 23, 2019 and April 19, 2020 back injuries and reviewed the medical
treatment that she had received. In a November 2, 2020 letter, he indicated that he treated appellant
on September 18, 2020 because she had injured her back again. In a February 10, 2021 addendum,
Dr. Thomas reported that “the injuries suffered as described in the note above can cause th e disc
disease diagnosed by the MRI and discogram.” While he provided an opinion on causal
relationship, Dr. Thomas did not definitively relate appellant’s current lumbar condition to the
September 18, 2020 employment incident. He did not describe the accepted September 18, 2020
employment incident, nor provide any explanation of how the specific incident caused or
contributed to appellant’s current lumbar condition. The Board has held that medical opinion
evidence should reflect a correct history and of fer a medically sound explanation of how the
specific employment incident or work factors, physiologically caused injury. 18 These reports,
therefore, are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.
OWCP also received a series of diagnostic tests. The Board has held, however, that
diagnostic tests, standing alone, lack probative value on the issue of causal relationship as they do
not address whether the employment incident caused a diagnosed condition. 19

16

J.W., Docket No. 18-0678 (issued March 3, 2020); D.B., Docket No. 18-1359 (issued May 14, 2019); Ricky S.
Storms, 52 ECAB 349 (2001) (while the opinion of a physician supporting causal relationship need not be one of
absolute medical certainty, the opinion must not be speculative or equivocal. The opinion sho uld be expressed in
terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty).
17

V.L., Docket No. 20-0884 (issued February 12, 2021); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K.,
Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
18

K.J., Docket No. 21-0020 (issued October 22, 2021); L.R., Docket No. 16-0736 (issued September 2, 2016); J.R.,
Docket No. 12-1099 (issued November 7, 2012); Douglas M. McQuaid, 52 ECAB 382 (2001).
19

V.Y., Docket No. 18-0610 (issued March 6, 2020); G.S., Docket No. 18-1696 (issued March 26, 2019); A.B.,
Docket No. 17-0301 (issued May 19, 2017).

7

Appellant also submitted a Form CA-17 dated January 12, 2021 containing an illegible
signature. However, this report is of no probative value since reports lacking proper identification
do not constitute probative medical evidence.20
As there is no medical evidence of record establishing that appellant’s lumbar condition
was causally related to the accepted employment incident, the Board finds that appellant has not
met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the accepted
September 18, 2020 employment incident.
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 establish a medical
condition causally related to the accepted September 18, 2020 employment incident.

20

A.W., Docket No. 21-0298 (issued August 26, 2021); C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); Merton J.
Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988).

8

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 22, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: March 16, 2022
Washington, DC

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

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

9


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
J.L., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Philadelphia, PA, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Jeffrey P. Zeelander, Esq., for the appellant
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 09-1420
Issued: February 2, 2010

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
DAVID S. GERSON, Judge
JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On May 18, 2009 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 30, 2009 decision of the
Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs adjudicating his schedule award claim. Pursuant to
20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant has more than 13 percent impairment to his left lower
extremity, 10 percent to his right lower extremity and 3 percent to his right upper extremity.

FACTUAL HISTORY
This case was previously before the Board.1 By order dated September 23, 2008, the
Board set aside a December 14, 2007 Office decision and remanded the case for further
development of the medical evidence. The Board found that the Office failed to follow the
instructions in its August 20, 2007 decision to refer appellant to an impartial medical specialist
for a resolution of the conflict in the medical evidence. Instead, the Office referred him for
second opinion examination. By decision dated August 20, 2007, the Board set aside a
January 25, 2007 Office decision and remanded the case for further development of the medical
evidence. The Board found a conflict in the medical evidence between the attending physician,
Dr. Richard I. Zamarin, and an Office medical adviser, Dr. Arnold T. Berman, necessitating
referral to an impartial medical specialist. The facts and the law of the case in the Board’s prior
order and decision are incorporated herein by reference.
In its December 14, 2007 schedule award decision, the Office noted that the correct
impairment rating for appellant’s left lower extremity was 13 percent, rather than the 19 percent
previously awarded, and he had 10 percent impairment to his right lower extremity. It made the
correction based on an October 27, 2007 report from Dr. Berman. In his first report dated
December 28, 2006, Dr. Berman found seven percent impairment due to a patellar fracture but
inadvertently indicated that the fracture was to the left lower extremity rather than the right lower
extremity. The Office accepted three percent impairment to each lower extremity for pain, as
determined by Dr. Berman on October 27, 2007. Dr. Berman provided medical rationale
including additional impairment to the lower extremities due to pain. In its December 14, 2007
decision, the Office granted an award for three percent impairment to appellant’s right upper
extremity based on Dr. Berman’s determination of three percent impairment due to pain that was
not caused by nerve injury. It granted appellant an additional schedule award for 20.88 weeks
based on seven percent additional impairment. The weeks of compensation awarded for an
upper extremity are based on a maximum 312 weeks for 100 percent upper extremity
impairment. For a lower extremity, the maximum number of weeks is 288 for 100 percent
impairment.2 Multiplying 312 weeks by four percent additional impairment for appellant’s
lower extremities equals 11.52 weeks of compensation. Multiplying 288 weeks by three percent
for the lower extremity equals 8.64 weeks of compensation, for a total of 20.88 weeks.
On November 12, 2008 the Office referred appellant to Dr. William C. Hamilton, a
Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for an examination and evaluation to resolve the conflict in
the medical opinion evidence.
1

See Docket No. 08-608 (issued September 23, 2008); Docket No. 07-829 (issued August 20, 2007). On
February 18, 2005 appellant, then a 53-year-old letter carrier, filed a claim for a traumatic injury on February 17,
2005 when he was struck by a motor vehicle while walking his delivery route. The Office accepted his claim for a
contusion and fracture of the left ankle, a fracture of the right patella, a sprain and strain of the right rotator cuff, a
contusion of the right chest wall, a collapsed right lung and pneumonia. On September 22, 2005 it expanded the
claim to accept a cervical strain and aggravation of a torn left medial meniscus. On March 30, 2006 appellant filed a
claim for a schedule award. On April 14, 2006 he underwent arthroscopic surgery, including a partial medial and
lateral meniscectomy, chondral shaving of the medial compartment and patella femoral joint and ablation. On
November 10, 2008 the Office accepted a recurrence of disability on September 27, 2008.
2

See 5 U.S.C. § 8107 (c)(1) and (c)(2).

2

In a January 13, 2009 report, Dr. Hamilton reviewed the medical records and conducted a
physical examination of appellant. However, he provided no findings on physical examination.
Dr. Hamilton summarized the impairment ratings of Dr. Zamarin and Dr. Berman, noting that
they both found 10 percent impairment to the left lower extremity for a partial medial and lateral
meniscectomy, 7 percent impairment to the right lower extremity for a patellar fracture and 3
percent impairment to the right upper extremity for pain. He stated that there was significant
disagreement between the physicians, however, as to whether appellant had additional left lower
extremity impairment due to gait derangement. Dr. Hamilton determined that appellant was not
entitled to impairment based on gait derangement according to section 17.2c of the A.M.A.,
Guides. He determined that appellant had 20 percent impairment which he stated was in
agreement with Dr. Berman’s impairment rating, “allowing for slight mathematical error.”
Dr. Hamilton did not explain his rating with reference to each of the three body parts involved.
By letter dated February 19, 2009, the Office asked Dr. Hamilton to specify the
impairment to each of appellant’s body parts. On February 24, 2009 Dr. Hamilton responded
that he agreed with Dr. Berman’s rating of 13 percent impairment to the left lower extremity, 10
percent to the right lower extremity and 3 percent to the right upper extremity for a 26 percent
total impairment. He stated that he miscalculated in stating that appellant had 20 percent
impairment but did not explain. The record shows that Dr. Hamilton’s reports were not reviewed
by an Office medical adviser.3
On April 30, 2009 the Office affirmed the December 14, 2007 decision, finding that
appellant had no more than 13 percent impairment to his left lower extremity, 10 percent to his
right lower extremity and 3 percent to his right upper extremity.4
LEGAL PRECEDENT
The schedule award provision of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act5 and its
implementing regulations6 set forth the number of weeks of compensation payable to employees
sustaining permanent impairment from loss, or loss of use, of scheduled members or functions of
the body. However, the Act does not specify the manner in which the percentage of loss shall be
determined. For consistent results and to ensure equal justice under the law to all claimants,
good administrative practice necessitates the use of a single set of tables so that there may be

3

See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Award and Permanent Disability Claims,
Chapter 2.808.6(d) (August 2002) (these procedures contemplate that, after obtaining all necessary medical
evidence, the file should be routed to an Office medical adviser for an opinion concerning the nature and percentage
of impairment in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides, with the medical adviser providing rationale for the
percentage of impairment specified, especially when there is more than one evaluation of the impairment present).
4

Subsequent to the April 30, 2009 Office decision, additional evidence was associated with the file. The Board’s
jurisdiction is limited to the evidence that was before the Office at the time it issued its final decision. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 501.2(c). The Board may not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal.
5

5 U.S.C. § 8107.

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

3

uniform standards applicable to all claimants. The A.M.A., Guides has been adopted by the
implementing regulations as the appropriate standard for evaluating schedule losses.7
Section 8123(a) of the Act provides that “if there is disagreement between the physician
making the examination for the United States and the physician of the employee, the Secretary
[of Labor] shall appoint a third physician who shall make an examination.”8 Where a case is
referred to an impartial medical specialist for the purpose of resolving a conflict, the opinion of
such specialist, if sufficiently well rationalized and based on a proper factual and medical
background, must be given special weight.9
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that this case is not in posture for a decision. The impairment rating of
Dr. Hamilton is not sufficient to resolve the conflict in the medical opinion evidence.
Dr. Hamilton reviewed the medical records and conducted a physical examination of
appellant. However, he provided no description of his findings on physical examination.
Dr. Hamilton summarized the impairment ratings of Dr. Zamarin and Dr. Berman, noting that
they both found 10 percent impairment to the left lower extremity for a partial medial and lateral
meniscectomy, 7 percent impairment to the right lower extremity for a patellar fracture and 3
percent impairment to the right upper extremity for pain. He failed to note that both Dr. Zamarin
and Dr. Berman found an additional 3 percent impairment to each lower extremity due to pain.
Dr. Hamilton stated that there was significant disagreement between the physicians as to whether
appellant had additional left lower extremity impairment due to gait derangement. He
determined that appellant was not entitled to impairment based on gait derangement according to
section 17.2c of the A.M.A., Guides. Dr. Hamilton determined that appellant had 20 percent
impairment which he noted was in agreement with Dr. Berman’s impairment rating, allowing for
slight mathematical error. He did not explain his rating with reference to the three body parts
involved. The Office asked Dr. Hamilton to provide a supplemental report addressing the
impairment to each of appellant’s body parts. Dr. Hamilton responded, without explanation, that
he agreed with Dr. Berman’s rating of 13 percent impairment to the left lower extremity, 10
percent to the right lower extremity and 3 percent to the right upper extremity, for a 26 percent
total impairment. He stated that he miscalculated in stating that appellant had 20 percent
impairment in his previous report but did not explain. The Board finds that Dr. Hamilton’s
impairment rating is not sufficient to resolve the conflict in the medical opinion evidence for
several reasons. Dr. Hamilton failed to provide specific physical findings. He did not explain
how he determined appellant’s impairment with reference to applicable sections of the A.M.A.,
Guides (with the exception of his reason for excluding impairment for gait derangement).
Dr. Hamilton did not address impairment to each body part but merely provided a 20 percent
total impairment without further explanation. He later changed the total impairment to the 26
7

Id.

8

5 U.S.C. § 8123(a); see also Raymond A. Fondots, 53 ECAB 637 (2002); Rita Lusignan (Henry Lusignan), 45
ECAB 207 (1993).
9

See Roger Dingess, 47 ECAB 123 (1995); Glenn C. Chasteen, 42 ECAB 493 (1991).

4

percent determined by Dr. Berman, without explanation, except to say that he miscalculated. In
sum, Dr. Hamilton merely indicated his agreement with Dr. Berman’s impairment rating without
providing his own independent assessment of appellant’s impairment based on specific physical
findings on examination and reference to specific sections and tables in the A.M.A., Guides.
Due to these deficiencies, his impairment rating is not sufficient to resolve the conflict in medical
opinion.
The Board notes also that the Office failed to follow its procedures requiring referral of
the medical evidence to an Office medical adviser in cases where an impartial medical specialist
examination was arranged to resolve a conflict in a schedule award case.10 The Office did not
refer the impairment rating of Dr. Hamilton to an Office medical adviser as required.
On remand the Office should refer appellant to a new Board-certified medical specialist
for an independent evaluation of his left and right lower extremity and right upper extremity
impairment based on correct application of the A.M.A., Guides. The physician should provide
specific findings on physical examination and any measurements necessary for application of
appropriate sections of the A.M.A., Guides. He or she should refer to specific sections and
tables in the A.M.A, Guides that are appropriate to a determination of appellant’s impairment.
The physician should provide medical rationale explaining why a particular rating method was
selected. If more than one impairment rating method can be used in evaluating appellant’s
impairment, the method that provides the higher rating should be adopted.11
On appeal, appellant asked the Board to review, in addition to the schedule award, the
pay rate used in the schedule award. However, he did not identify any specific error by the
Office in its pay rate determination for the Board to consider.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that this case is not in posture for a decision. On remand, the Office
should refer appellant to a new Board-certified impartial medical specialist for an evaluation of
the impairment to his lower extremities and his right upper extremity.

10

See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Medical Examinations, Chapter 3.500.5
(March 2005).
11

A.M.A., Guides 527.

5

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs dated April 30, 2009 is set aside and the case is remanded for further
development consistent with this decision.
Issued: February 2, 2010
Washington, DC

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

David S. Gerson, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

6


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
S.G., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING &
DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Little Rock, AR,
Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Docket No. 21-1039
Issued: February 22, 2022

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 June 29, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 17, 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
2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

The Board notes that, following the June 17, 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.

ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that a traumatic
injury occurred in the performance of duty on March 15, 2021, as alleged.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On March 16, 2021 appellant, then a 42-year-old mail processing clerk, filed a traumatic
injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 15, 2021 she sustained bilateral carpal tunnel
syndrome due to repetitive motion while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on
March 16, 2021. Appellant’s supervisor acknowledged on the reverse side of the claim form that
the injury occurred in the performance of duty.
With her claim, appellant submitted form reports excusing her from work on March 15,
2021 due to pinched nerve, cervical radiculopathy, and carpal tunnel syndrome.
In a March 15, 2021 triage note, Lindsey N. Johnson, a registered nurse, diagnosed bilateral
elbow, hand, and forearm pain since February 2021. She noted that appellant had worked loading
boxes at the employing establishment.
In emergency department notes dated March 15, 2021, Daniel L. Eubanks, an advanced
practice registered nurse in emergency medicine, noted that appellant was seen for intermittent
bilateral upper extremity numbness, which had increased in frequency since February 2021.
Appellant recounted that she had been referred to the emergency room by her employer because
she kept dropping items. Physical examination findings were detailed. Mr. Eubanks diagnosed
cervical radiculopathy.
In an April 5, 2021 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Jesse Abler, an osteopath
specializing in orthopedic surgery, diagnosed bilateral wrist carpal tunnel and right elbow lateral
epicondylitis. He noted the date of injury as March 15, 2021. Under description of injury,
Dr. Abler noted elbow and wrist repetitive motion. He indicated that appellant was able to work
as of April 5, 2021 with restrictions.
On April 14, 2021 OWCP received an undated attending physician’s report (Form CA-20)
from Dr. Abler wherein he diagnosed bilateral wrist carpal tunnel and right elbow lateral
epicondylitis. Dr. Abler listed March 15, 2021 as the date of injury. He checked a box marked
“Yes” to the question of whether the condition found had been caused or aggravated by the
employment activity of repetitive work.
In an attending physician’s report, Part B of an authorization for examination and/or
treatment (Form CA-16) dated April 5, 2021, Dr. Abler diagnosed bilateral wrist carpal tunnel and
right elbow lateral epicondylitis. He listed March 15, 2021 as the date of injury. Dr. Abler checked
a box marked “Yes” in response to the question of whether the condition found had been caused
or aggravated by an employment activity.
On April 21, 2021 appellant accepted an April 7, 2021 modified, limited-duty job offer.

2

In a development letter dated May 6, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies
of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and provided a
questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. No response was
received.
By decision dated June 17, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the factual
evidence of record was insufficient to establish that an employment incident occurred on
March 15, 2021 as alleged. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to
establish an injury as defined by FECA.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under FECA 3 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, 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 in jury 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 fact of injury has been established. 7
Generally, fact of injury consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with
one another. First, the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually
experienced the employment incident at the time and place, and in the manner alleged. 8 Second,
the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that the employment in cident caused a
personal injury. 9

3

Supra note 1.

4

T.G., Docket No. 20-1549 (issued August 3, 2021); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); S.B., Docket
No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).
5

T.G., id.; J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden,
Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).
6

T.G., id.; R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April 25, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014);
Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
7

T.G., id.; T.A., Docket No. 20-1284 (issued January 27, 2021); T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008).

8

T.G., id.; M.F., Docket No. 19-0578 (issued January 26, 2021); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9

G.E., Docket No. 20-1081 (issued January 26, 2021); B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); John J.
Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

3

An employee’s statement that an injury occurred at a given time and in a given manner is
of great probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong or persuasive evidence.10
Moreover, an injury does not have to be confirmed by eyewitnesses. The employee’s statement,
however, must be consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances and his o r her
subsequent course of action. An employee has not met his or her burden of proof to establish the
occurrence of an injury when there are such inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt
upon the validity of the claim. Circumstances such as late notification of injury, lack of
confirmation of injury, continuing to work without apparent difficulty following the alleged injury,
and failure to obtain medical treatment may, if otherwise unexplained, cast doubt on an employee’s
statement in determining whether a prima facie case has been established. 11
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic
injury in the performance of duty on March 15, 2021, as alleged.
On her Form CA-1, appellant indicated that on March 15, 2021 she developed bilateral
carpal tunnel syndrome due to repetitive work. She did not submit a detailed account of the alleged
injury, describe the repetitive work performed, or provide any additional corroborating factual
evidence describing how she sustained an injury on March 15, 2021. The Board has found that
such a vague recitation of facts does not support a claimant’s allegation that a specific event
occurred to cause a work-related injury.12
OWCP, in its May 6, 2021 development letter, informed appellant of the type of factual
and medical evidence needed to establish her traumatic injury claim. It requested that she complete
an attached questionnaire and provide a detailed factual description of the alleged employment
incident. Appellant, however, did not respond to OWCP’s development letter.
As there is no evidence of record to substantiate atraumatic injury in the performance of
duty on March 15, 2021, as alleged, 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.

10

C.R., Docket No. 20-1147 (issued January 5, 2021); M.S., Docket No. 18-0059 (issued June 12, 2019); D.B., 58
ECAB 464, 466-67 (2007).
11

T.G., supra note 5; K.F., Docket No. 18-0485 (issued February 18, 2020); D.R., Docket No. 19-0072 (issued
June 24, 2019).
12

T.C, Docket No. 20-1513 (issued June 4, 2021); M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); M.B., Docket
No. 11-1785 (issued February 15, 2012).

4

CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic
injury in the performance of duty on March 15, 2021, as alleged
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT June 17, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: February 22, 2022
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

5


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
R.E., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Casper, WY, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
David G. Miller, for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 21-0172
Issued: June 15, 2021

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On November 23, 2020 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from a
May 28, 2020 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). As
more than 180 days has elapsed from OWCP’s last merit decision, dated May 22, 2019, to the
filing of this appeal, pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2 (FECA) and
20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board lacks 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 OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the
merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
FACTUAL HISTORY
On April 15, 2019 appellant, then a 51-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational disease
claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed bilateral knee osteoarthritis due to factors of her
federal employment. She reported that she first became aware of her condition and first realized
it was caused or aggravated by factors of her federal employment on August 21, 2017. Appellant
indicated that she had undergone surgery for a meniscus tear in the right knee and initially thought
that it would fix her injury, but after a couple of months, her condition worsened as she continued
to work. She did not stop work.
In an undated statement, appellant noted that she had been working as a letter carrier at the
employing establishment for 20 years. She explained that her most recently assigned route had
approximately 500 stops and that she was used to walking eight miles a day when delivering mail.
Appellant also noted that she had meniscus tear surgery on her left knee several years prior and
she began to have pain in her right knee afterward, causing her to undergo right knee meniscus
tear surgery in 2017. She asserted that at the time of her right knee surgery, while her doctor had
informed her that her condition was work related, she believed that surgery would fix her condition
and did not think to file a claim. Appellant noted that she healed well and returned to work on
full-time duty. However, after a few months, she experienced new problems with both knees,
including extreme discomfort and difficulty walking. Appellant alleged that she could no longer
participate in many everyday activities that she used to enjoy. She noted that her work duties
included casing, sorting, and delivering mail, magazines, and flats, which required standing for
two to three hours a day, walking and dismounting from her vehicle for three to seven hours a day,
sitting while driving and retrieving mail, lifting and carrying parcels up to a maximum of 70
pounds, pushing and pulling five to 20 pounds of tubs, and grasping, as well as reaching above the
shoulder level. Appellant stated that she had approximately 550 deliveries each day. She also
picked up outgoing mail along her route all day.
In an April 18, 2019 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of
her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish her claim
and provided a factual questionnaire for her completion. In a separate development letter of even
date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide additional information regarding
appellant’s occupational disease claim, including comments from a knowledgeable supervisor
regarding the accuracy of appellant’s statements. It afforded both parties 30 days to respond.
An August 21, 2017 x-ray of the right knee revealed no abnormal findings.
In an August 21, 2017 medical report, Dr. Richard L. Stowell, an orthopedic surgeon,
noted that appellant presented with right knee pain. Appellant reported to him that her knee pain
had been ongoing for about a week and indicated that she had a history of low back pain. She also
reported that she felt a pop and her pain had been increasing. Dr. Stowell indicated that appellant

2

had a history of meniscal tear, which was treated by partial meniscectomy. He conducted a
physical examination and diagnosed right knee pain.
An August 29, 2017 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of appellant’s right knee
demonstrated an oblique tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus, small knee joint
effusion, patellar chondromalacia, and a small ganglion cyst superficial to the medial collateral
ligament.
In an August 30, 2017 medical report, Dr. Stowell conducted a physical examination,
reviewed the August 29, 2017 MRI scan of the right knee, and diagnosed medial meniscal tear in
the right knee.
In a September 20, 2017 medical report, Dr. Stowell indicated that appellant was scheduled
to undergo a right knee partial meniscectomy. He again diagnosed medial meniscal tear in the
right knee.
In a November 8, 2017 medical report, Dr. Stowell indicated that appellant underwent a
right knee arthroscopic partial medial meniscectomy on October 3, 2017.
An October 15, 2018 x-rays of the bilateral knee revealed bilateral knee osteoarthritis with
severe joint space narrowing at the medial compartments, left worse than right.
In a March 4, 2019 medical report, Dr. Stowell diagnosed bilateral knee osteoarthritis. In
a note of even date, Dr. Stowell provided work restrictions.
A March 8, 2019 MRI scan of the left knee demonstrated a complete anterior cruciate
ligament (ACL) tear with a partial medial collateral ligament (MCL) tear, a large tear of the
posterior horn of the medial meniscus with a displaced meniscal fragment, osteoarthritis and
chondromalacia of the knee joint, and small effusion with a large Baker’s cyst.
In a March 18, 2019 medical report, Dr. Stowell diagnosed bilateral knee osteoarthritis and
left knee MCL, ACL, and meniscal tears.
In a March 19, 2019 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Stowell diagnosed
bilateral knee osteoarthritis, noting that appellant had a history of bilateral knee pain, meniscus
tears, and osteoarthritis. He checked a box marked “Yes,” indicating that the diagnosed conditions
were caused or aggravated by an employment activity.
In an April 2, 2019 letter, Dr. Stowell opined that due to the extent of physical activity of
walking at work, appellant’s preexisting bilateral knee osteoarthritis “would have been
exacerbated.”
An April 9, 2019 computerized tomography (CT) scan of the left lower extremity
demonstrated degenerative changes of the left hip, knee, and ankle. A CT scan of the right lower
extremity of even date revealed degenerative changes of the right hip and knee with small right
knee joint effusion and mild subcutaneous edema of the right calf.

3

In an April 11, 2019 letter, Dr. Stowell diagnosed bilateral knee pain and osteoarthritis, as
well as right knee medial meniscus tear. He again opined that due to the extent of physical activity
of walking at work, appellant’s preexisting bilateral knee osteoarthritis “would have been
exacerbated.”
In a May 9, 2019 medical report, Dr. Eric H. Linford, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon,
noted that appellant presented for evaluation of her bilateral knee and advised that she was referred
to him by Dr. Stowell. Appellant reported to him that she experienced persistent pain in her knees
that was worse with walking. Dr. Linford indicated that appellant underwent bilateral arthroscopic
knee surgery on that day. He conducted a physical examination and diagnosed bilateral arthritis,
chronic ACL tear on the left with patella and medial compartment chondromalacia, as well as
chondromalacia on the right knee with intact ligaments. Dr. Linford opined that appellant’s job
“could have worsened her arthritis.”
By decision dated May 22, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim,
finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that her diagnosed
conditions were causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.
On July 26, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted additional evidence.
In a July 11, 2019 narrative report, Dr. Linford noted that he began treating appellant since
May 2019 for bilateral knee osteoarthritis. He indicated that appellant initially sustained nonworkrelated meniscus tearing of her left knee approximately 10 years ago and had an extensive
treatment history in both knees, including several knee arthroscopies. Dr. Linford also noted that
the x-ray reports demonstrated bilateral knee arthritis and her MRI scans showed clear cartilage
loss and degeneration. He related that appellant provided him with her job description and noted
that appellant’s duties included prolonged standing, extensive walking on hard, concrete surfaces
and uneven terrain while carrying a mailbag weighing up to 35 pounds, bending, twisting, lifting,
and stooping. Appellant also reported that she pivoted on her feet several hundred times daily and
regularly climbed stairs.
Dr. Linford explained that appellant’s repetitive nature of her job “certainly could progress
any sort of pathology within the knees, including degenerative meniscal tears and/or cartilage
defects.” He opined, within reasonable medical certainty, that appellant’s “work requirements
have accelerated her knee osteoarthritis and the subsequent pain and disability.” Dr. Linford also
opined that appellant’s work duties “would have ... permanently aggravated” the diagnosed
condition of osteoarthritis with repetitive motion, as well as with loading and twisting movements
throughout the workday. He explained that appellant’s progress was much quicker than any
normal aging process. Dr. Linford concluded that appellant’s bilateral knee osteoarthritis was
“certainly directly related to her job duties” and “would be worsened and progressed with
excessive walking, twisting, and carrying heavy loads and prolonged standing during the day.”
By decision dated July 31, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of
the merits of her claim.
On May 19, 2020 appellant, through her representative, again requested reconsideration
and submitted additional evidence.

4

In a September 13, 2019 statement, appellant again explained her work duties and asserted
that her work duties required her to walk substantially more than the average American,
approximately 32,500 miles over 20 years, resulting in her diagnosed conditions.
In a May 18, 2020 narrative report, Dr. Linford again noted that he began treating appellant
in May 2019 for bilateral knee osteoarthritis. He provided a history of appellant’s injury and
treatments. Dr. Linford additionally noted that appellant provided him with her September 13,
2019 statement, which detailed the nature of her work duties, which again included prolonged
standing, extensive walking on hard, concrete surfaces and uneven terrain while carrying a mail
bag weighing up to 35 pounds, bending, twisting, lifting, and stooping. He explained that the
repetitive nature of appellant’s job “would progress any sort of pathology within the knees,
including degenerative meniscal tears and/or cartilage defects.” Dr. Linford again opined that
appellant’s work duties would have permanently aggravated the diagnosed condition of
osteoarthritis and that her progress was much quicker than any normal aging process. He
concluded that appellant’s bilateral knee osteoarthritis was “certainly directly related to her job
duties” and “would be worsened and progressed with excessive walking, twisting, and carrying
heavy loads and prolonged standing during the day.”
OWCP also received a copy of appellant’s letter carrier position description.
By decision dated May 28, 2020, OWCP again denied appellant’s request for
reconsideration of the merits of her claim.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
Section 8128(a) of FECA 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 compensation at any time on his own motion or on application.3
To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review pursuant to FECA, the claimant must
provide evidence or an argument which: (1) shows that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted
a specific point of law; (2) advances a relevant legal argument not previously considered by
OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by
OWCP.4
A request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of
OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.5 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens
3

Id. at § 8128(a); see M.S., Docket No. 19-1001 (issued December 9, 2019); L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued
February 11, 2019); see also V.P., Docket No. 17-1287 (issued October 10, 2017); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).
4
20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see L.D., id.; see also K.L., Docket No. 17-1479 (issued December 20, 2017); C.N.,
Docket No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008).
5

Id. at § 10.607(a). The one-year period begins on the next day after the date of the original contested decision.
Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 (February 2016).
Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date of the request for reconsideration as indicated by the received
date in the Integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS). Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4b.

5

and reviews the case on its merits.6 If the request is timely, but fails to meet at least one of the
requirements for reconsideration, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without
reopening the case for review on the merits.7
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the
merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
The Board finds that appellant has not shown that OWCP erroneously applied or
interpreted a specific point of law, nor has she advanced a relevant legal argument not previously
considered by OWCP. In her September 13, 2019 statement, appellant asserted that her work
duties required a lot of walking, resulting in her diagnosed conditions. These assertions do not
show a legal error by OWCP or constitute a new and relevant legal argument.8 These assertions
are simply a reassertion of the facts which OWCP considered in weighing the evidence presented
in the case and finding that appellant had not met her burden of proof. The Board has held that
the submission of evidence or argument which repeats or duplicates evidence or argument already
in the case record does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.9 Thus, appellant is not entitled
to a review of the merits of her claim based on the first and second above-noted requirements under
section 10.606(b)(3).10
The Board further finds that appellant has not provided any relevant and pertinent new
evidence not previously considered. The underlying issue in the case is whether appellant has
provided sufficient medical evidence to establish that her diagnosed bilateral knee conditions were
causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. This is a medical question that
requires rationalized medical opinion evidence to resolve the issue.11 Appellant submitted a
May 18, 2020 narrative report of Dr. Linford, who opined that appellant’s repetitive nature of her
job “would progress” any sort of pathology within the knees. While this evidence is new, it is
substantially similar to Dr. Linford’s July 11, 2019 narrative report, which opined that appellant’s
repetitive nature of her job “certainly could progress” any sort of pathology within the knees.
Providing additional medical evidence that either duplicates or is substantially similar to evidence
of record does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.12 Appellant also submitted her position
6

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

7

Id. at § 10.608(b); M.S., Docket No. 19-0291 (issued June 21, 2019); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued
March 18, 2010).
8

See. Y.K., Docket No. 18-1167 (issued April 2, 2020).

9
R.R., Docket No. 20-0378 (issued March 9, 2021); G.D., Docket No. 18-1665 (issued March 12, 2019); Eugene F.
Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984).
10

See A.G., Docket No. 20-0290 (issued June 24, 2020); C.B., Docket No. 18-1108 (issued January 22, 2019).

11

B.S., Docket No. 20-0927 (issued January 29, 2021); E.T., Docket No. 14-1087 (issued September 5, 2014).

12
S.H., Docket No. 19-1897 (issued April 21, 2020); M.K., Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April 10, 2019); Edward
Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224-25 (1979).

6

description as a letter carrier in support of her request for reconsideration. This evidence, however,
is irrelevant as it does not address the underlying issue of causal relationship. The Board has held
that the submission of evidence that does not address the underlying issue involved does not
constitute a basis for reopening a case.13 As appellant did not provide relevant and pertinent new
evidence, she is not entitled to a merit review based on the third requirement under 20 C.F.R.
§ 10.606(b)(3).14
The Board, accordingly, finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of
20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.15
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the
merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 28, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: June 15, 2021
Washington, DC

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

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
13

E.J., Docket No. 20-0841 (issued February 12, 2021); T.T., Docket No. 19-1624 (issued October 28, 2020).

14

See T.W., Docket No. 18-0821 (issued January 13, 2020).

15

See J.B., Docket No. 20-0145 (issued September 8, 2020).

7