United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
G.P., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Edison, NJ, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Docket No. 20-1063
Issued: February 3, 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 April 6, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 9, 2019 merit decision
of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’
Compensation Act1 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over
the merits of this case.2
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish emotional and
stress-related conditions in the performance of duty, as alleged.

1
2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

The Board notes that following the December 9, 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.

FACTUAL HISTORY
On November 23, 2018 appellant, then a 63-year-old customer care agent, filed an
occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she experienced depression, anxiety,
shortness of breath, chest tightness, headaches, eye pain, dizziness, feelings of helplessness and
hopelessness, and confusion of thought due to factors of her federal employment, including workrelated retirement issues, on-the-job injuries, and denial of requests for time off to attend doctors’
appointments. She noted that she first became aware of her condition in May 2018 and first
realized its relationship to her federal employment on November 15, 2018. Appellant stopped
work on November 15, 2018.
In a letter dated December 3, 2018, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s
claim, noting that there was no medical evidence submitted to establish that her condition was
caused by factors of her federal employment.
In a development letter dated December 6, 2018, 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 and provided a questionnaire for her completion. In a separate
development letter of even date, OWCP requested additional information from the employing
establishment, including comments from a knowledgeable supervisor and any additional
information such as witness statements or corroborating documents. OWCP afforded both parties
30 days to submit the necessary evidence.
OWCP subsequently received an authorization form, dated April 24, 2018, which showed
that appellant attended an employee assistance program (EAP) session that day.
Emergency department discharge notes, dated April 30, 2018, indicated that appellant saw
Dr. Ronald Guzas, a Board-certified osteopath specializing in emergency medicine, and listed a
discharge diagnosis of rash.
In a November 15, 2018 report, an emergency medical technician (EMT) noted that
appellant experienced hyperventilation and excessive crying at work. He related that appellant
was suffering from anxiety and depression due to work-related issues. The EMT examined
appellant and found no other abnormalities. He transported appellant to a local emergency
department without incident.
Hospital discharge notes, dated November 15, 2018, indicated that appellant was treated
by Dr. Janos Jeges, a Board-certified specialist in emergency medicine, for chest pain and anxiety
and stress reactions.
In a letter dated November 26, 2018, Dr. Mark Glat, Psy. D., a licensed psychologist, noted
that he had been treating appellant for moderate-to-severe depression since April 2018. He
indicated that she was experiencing depressed mood, weepiness, irritability, poor concentration,
fatigue, and a lack of energy. Dr. Glat reported that appellant had a history of work-related stress.
Specifically, he noted that appellant was informed in April 2018 that her planned retirement was
in question because of difficulties in obtaining the appropriate information. Dr. Glat indicated that
since these difficulties emerged, appellant’s mood had significantly deteriorated. He further

2

related that appellant had not been allowed to take time off and schedule doctors’ appointments.
Dr. Glat reported that he evaluated appellant on November 21, 2018 and found her to present with
sadness, weepiness, difficulty in concentrating, irritability, and high levels of anxiety. He
diagnosed major depression. Dr. Glat opined that appellant was not able to return to work due to
the daily stressors that she was being exposed to at the job.
In a November 30, 2018 report, Anna Olsen, a licensed professional counselor, noted that
she had been treating appellant for workplace stress from September 6, 2018 through
November 26, 2018. She indicated that appellant had experienced difficulties with the retirement
process at work since March 2018. Ms. Olsen diagnosed acute stress disorder and noted that
appellant’s symptoms included headaches, eye pressure, shingles, hyperventilation, shortness of
breath, chest discomfort, sleep disturbance, and concentration difficulties. She opined that
appellant’s condition was related to her employment situation, not her actual work duties.
In a December 18, 2018 narrative statement, appellant noted that her stress-related issues
began when she started planning her retirement in April 2018. She indicated that she applied for
a printout of her estimated retirement benefits and was informed that she would not be able to
retire in July 2018 as planned. Appellant stated that she contacted her human resources department
on numerous occasions and was given conflicting answers. She noted that she tried to contact
several departments in her office and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), but could not
resolve her retirement issues. Appellant indicated that she filed an Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) case and met with a counselor who also failed to reach the retirement specialist. She
asserted that she was not adequately informed of her retirement options. Appellant related that she
was enrolled in an EAP and sought private counseling because of the stress and anxiety caused by
her work. She reported that she developed shingles and experienced difficulty sleeping, anxiety
attacks, shortness of breath, chest tightness, headaches, eye pain, dizziness, and feelings of
hopelessness and helplessness. Appellant indicated that her leave request to attend EAP
appointments every two weeks was denied which further compounded her anxiety. She noted that
her position as a customer care agent was stressful because she handled customer complaints
regarding lack of service. Appellant asserted that customer care agents were held to higher
standards than other employees. She indicated that she had never experienced any of these
symptoms in the past and that she was being treated for anxiety and depression.
In an e-mail correspondence, dated January 2, 2019, the employing establishment noted
that it had returned all of appellant’s calls and left voicemails when she did not answer. It indicated
that there was no record that appellant was scheduled for a retirement counseling session. The
employing establishment further noted that the HRSSC did not accept faxed retirement paperwork.
On January 4, 2019 the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim. It noted
that appellant was informed of her retirement options before she was rehired as an annuitant and
that she was advised that she would need to contact OPM when she decided to retire. In response
to OWCP’s development questionnaire, the employing establishment noted that there were no
witnesses or documents that would provide additional information. It stated that appellant was
scheduled to work 40 hours per week and that she had not been forced to work overtime. The
employing establishment attached a statement from appellant’s supervisor, L.M., dated
December 28, 2018. L.M. asserted that the employing establishment was not responsible for
employee retirement benefits and that it was up to the individual employee to manage finances and

3

plan for retirement. She noted that appellant was held to the same standards as other customer
care agents and that she had not witnessed appellant’s crying meltdowns at work. L.M. indicated
that only the first EAP meeting was permitted on company time and that the rest must be scheduled
based on the employee’s availability. She asserted that appellant’s issues did not relate to her
duties as a customer care agent and instead resulted from her not being able to retire.
By decision dated February 25, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the
evidence of record was insufficient to establish that a medical condition arose during the course of
employment and within the scope of compensable work factors as defined by FECA.
In a letter dated April 10, 2019, appellant argued that she submitted a rebuttal statement
prior to the issuance of the February 25, 2019 decision. She asserted that the statement was
received by OWCP on February 22, 2019, but was not entered into the case record and was thus
never reviewed. Appellant requested review of her rebuttal statement and attached a priority mail
receipt showing a scheduled delivery date of a package to OWCP of February 22, 2019.
On October 15, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration. She asserted that she had timely
submitted a rebuttal statement that was not entered into the record. In an accompanying statement,
appellant noted that she attended an EAP session on April 24, 2018 that was paid for by the
employing establishment. She indicated that the session was related to anxiety and depression
issues associated with the retirement process. Appellant stated that she used her annual and sick
leave to continue attending EAP counseling. She noted that she requested leave without pay
(LWOP) to continue EAP counseling without discipline after exhausting her annual and sick leave.
Appellant indicated that she scheduled sessions once every two weeks at the earliest available time
at 10:00 a.m. She reported that there were no weekend or earlier appointments available and noted
that the arrangement would make her late for work. Appellant asserted that she was informed that
her participation in the EAP program could not result in disciplinary action.
Appellant resubmitted a November 26, 2018 report from Dr. Glat and a November 30,
2018 report from Ms. Olsen.
In a letter dated February 18, 2019, Ms. Olsen noted that appellant began counseling
sessions on September 6, 2018 to address workplace stress. She indicated that the sessions were
scheduled weekly until November 1, 2018, when the intervals were changed to every other week.
Ms. Olsen noted that appellant scheduled the earliest available appointment for each of her
sessions.
By decision dated December 9, 2019, OWCP denied modification of the February 25, 2019
decision.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the
essential elements of his or her claim, including the facts that the individual is an employee of the
United States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was filed within the applicable time
3

Supra note 1.

4

limitation, that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any
disability or specific 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 on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.5
To establish an emotional condition causally related to factors of his or her federal
employment, a claimant must submit: (1) factual evidence identifying and supporting employment
factors or incidents alleged to have caused or contributed to the condition; (2) rationalized medical
evidence establishing an emotional condition or psychiatric disorder; and (3) rationalized medical
opinion evidence establishing that the emotional condition is causally related to the identified
compensable employment factors.6
Workers’ compensation law does not apply to each and every injury or illness that is
somehow related to an employee’s employment. In the case of Lillian Cutler,7 the Board explained
that there are distinctions as to the type of employment situations giving rise to a compensable
emotional condition arising under FECA. There are situations where an injury or an illness has
some connection with the employment, but nevertheless does not come within the concept or
coverage of workers’ compensation. Where the disability results from an employee’s emotional
reaction to his or her regular or specially assigned duties or to a requirement imposed by the
employment, the disability comes within the coverage of FECA.8 On the other hand, the disability
is not covered where it results from such factors as an employee’s fear of a reduction-in-force or
his or her frustration from not being permitted to work in a particular environment, or to hold a
particular position.9
Administrative and personnel matters, although generally related to the employee’s
employment, are administrative functions of the employing establishment rather than the regular
or specially assigned work duties of the employee and are not covered under FECA.10 However,
the Board has held that where the evidence establishes error or abuse on the part of the employing
establishment in what would otherwise be an administrative matter, coverage will be afforded.11
4

S.Z., Docket No. 20-0106 (issued July 9, 2020); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008).

5

Id.

6

A.F., Docket No. 20-0525 (issued September 14, 2020); George H. Clark, 56 ECAB 162 (2004); Kathleen D.
Walker, 42 ECAB 603 (1991).
7

28 ECAB 125 (1976).

8

K.D., Docket No. 19-1542 (issued September 8, 2020); Trudy A. Scott, 52 ECAB 309 (2001); Lillian Cutler, 28
ECAB 125 (1976).
9

R.D., Docket No. 19-0877 (issued September 8, 2020); A.E., Docket No. 18-1587 (issued March 13, 2019);
Gregorio E. Conde, 52 ECAB 410 (2001).
10

A.B., Docket No. 18-0635 (issued August 14, 2020); Andrew J. Sheppard, 53 ECAB 170, 171 (2001); Matilda R.
Wyatt, 52 ECAB 421, 423 (2001); Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990); reaff’d on recon., 42 ECAB 566 (1991).
11
See O.G., Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August 7, 2019); D.R., Docket No. 16-0605 (issued October 17, 2016);
William H. Fortner, 49 ECAB 324 (1998).

5

In determining whether the employing establishment has erred or acted abusively, the Board will
examine the factual evidence of record to determine whether the employing establishment acted
reasonably.12
Mere perceptions and feelings, alone, are not compensable. To establish entitlement to
benefits, a claimant must establish a basis in fact for the claim by supporting his or her allegations
with probative and reliable evidence.13 When the matter asserted is a compensable factor of
employment and the evidence of record establishes the truth of the matter asserted, OWCP must
base its decision on an analysis of the medical evidence.14
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an emotional
condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.
Appellant has attributed her emotional condition in part to Cutler15 factors. She alleged
that as a customer care agent, she was held to a higher standard than other employees and that she
was overworked. Pursuant to Cutler16 this allegation could constitute a compensable employment
factor if appellant establishes that her regular job duties or a special assignment caused an
emotional condition. The Board has held that overwork, when substantiated by sufficient factual
information to corroborate appellant’s account of events, may be a compensable factor of
employment.17 The Board finds, however, that appellant submitted no evidence supporting her
allegation that she was held to a higher standard than other employees and that she was
overworked. In a December 28, 2018 statement, L.M., appellant’s supervisor, noted that appellant
was held to the same standards as other customer care agents. She indicated that appellant was
scheduled to work a 40-hour workweek and that she was never forced to work overtime
unwillingly. Thus, the Board finds that appellant has not established a compensable employment
factor under Cutler.
Appellant made several allegations regarding administrative and personnel actions. As
noted above, an employee’s emotional reaction to administrative actions or personnel matters
taken by the employing establishment is not covered under FECA as such matters pertain to
procedures and requirements of the employer and do not bear a direct relation to the work required

12

B.S., Docket No. 19-0378 (issued July 10, 2019); Ruth S. Johnson, 46 ECAB 237 (1994).

13

R.D., supra note 9; T.G., Docket No. 19-0071 (issued May 28, 2019); Marlon Vera, 54 ECAB 834 (2003).

14
See A.B., supra note 10; T.G., id.; Garry M. Carlo, 47 ECAB 299, 305 (1996); Norma L. Blank, 43 ECAB 384,
389-90 (1992).
15

Supra note 7.

16

Id.

17
M.S., Docket No. 19-1589 (issued October 7, 2020); W.F., Docket No. 18-1526 (issued November 26, 2019);
Bobbie D. Daly, 53 ECAB 691 (2002).

6

of an employee unless there is error or abuse on the part of the employing establishment.18 In
determining whether the employing establishment’s actions constitute error or abuse, the Board
will examine the factual evidence of record.19
Appellant’s allegations regarding inadequate responses to her retirement inquiries20 and
the handling of her leave requests21 relate to administrative or personnel management actions. She
has not submitted any corroborative evidence to establish a factual basis for her allegations that
her inquiries concerning retirement were not responded to and that she was provided with
inconsistent information relating to retirement. In an e-mail correspondence, dated January 2,
2019, the employing establishment noted that the HRSSC returned all of appellant’s calls and
indicated that there was no record that she was scheduled for a retirement counseling session. It
also noted that the HRSSC did not accept faxed retirement paperwork. In a January 4, 2019 letter,
the employing establishment indicated that appellant was informed of her retirement options
before she was rehired and that she was advised that she would need to contact OPM when she
decided to retire. Appellant also asserted that the employing establishment improperly denied her
requests for LWOP to attend EAP counseling sessions after she exhausted her annual and sick
leave. In an October 15, 2019 statement, she indicated that she scheduled counseling sessions
once every two weeks at the earliest available time at 10:00 a.m. Appellant noted that there were
no weekend or earlier appointments available and acknowledged that the arrangement would make
her late for work. She submitted a letter, dated February 18, 2019, from Ms. Olsen who confirmed
that appellant scheduled the earliest available appointment for each of her EAP sessions. In a
December 28, 2018 statement, L.M. explained that appellant’s leave requests were denied because
only the first EAP session was permitted on company time and the rest must be scheduled based
on the employee’s availability. Under these circumstances, the Board finds that appellant has not
established error or abuse in the handling of these administrative matters and thus, has not
established a compensable employment factor.22
As the Board finds that appellant has not established a compensable employment factor, it
is not necessary to consider the medical evidence of record.23
On appeal appellant alleges that she submitted a rebuttal statement that was not entered
into the record. 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

18

Supra note 11.

19

Supra note 12.

20

W.M., Docket No. 15-1080 (issued May 11, 2017); Michael A. Salvato, 53 ECAB 666, 668 (2002).

21

M.S., supra note 17; B.O., Docket No. 17-1986 (issued January 18, 2019); Lori A. Facey, 55 ECAB 217 (2004);
Judy L. Kahn, 53 ECAB 321 (2002).
22

See M.S., supra note 17; W.M., supra note 20. The Board notes that on reconsideration

23
See M.S., id.; R.B., Docket No. 19-0434 (issued November 22, 2019); Margaret S. Krzycki, 43 ECAB 496, 50203 (1992).

7

by the Board for the first time on appeal. Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this
additional evidence.24
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 an emotional
condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 9, 2019 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: February 3, 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

24

Supra note 2.

8


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
F.R., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
San Antonio, TX, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
C.B. Weiser, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 17-1711
Issued: September 6, 2018

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On August 4, 2017 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a March 24, 2017
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.
ISSUES
The issues are: (1) whether OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation effective June 3, 2012 as he no longer had any disability causally related to his
accepted employment-related injuries; and (2) whether appellant has established continuing
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.

employment-related disability on or after June 3, 2012 causally related to his accepted
employment-related injuries.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On September 25, 2008 appellant, then a 40-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury
claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 29, 2008 he sustained multiple injuries after he slipped
and fell on a wet floor while at work. OWCP assigned File No. xxxxxx282 and accepted the claim
for sprain of right hip and thigh, sprain of left wrist, lesion of left ulnar nerve, contusion of left
hand, other symptoms referable to right pelvic joint and thigh, and ganglion of bilateral tendon.
On October 29, 2009 appellant underwent OWCP-approved left carpal tunnel release. OWCP paid
him intermittent wage-loss compensation benefits on the supplemental rolls as of July 7, 2009.
On May 19, 2010 appellant filed another traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) for injuries
sustained when he slipped on a carpet at work. OWCP assigned File No. xxxxxx817 to this claim.
By decision dated December 1, 2010, it accepted this claim for right shoulder sprain, sprain of left
elbow, left wrist sprain, left chondromalacia patella, and tear of medial meniscus left knee.3
Appellant stopped work on February 19, 2011 and did not return. On February 24, 2011 he
underwent authorized left carpal tunnel release.
OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation benefits on the periodic rolls as of
March 13, 2011. On March 23, 2011 it combined appellant’s current case, OWCP File No.
xxxxxx282, with OWCP File No. xxxxxx817, the former being the master file.
On June 16, 2011 appellant underwent an authorized left knee meniscectomy.
OWCP prepared a statement of accepted facts (SOAF) on August 9, 2011 which only
included appellant’s accepted August 29, 2008 claim and the conditions accepted stemming from
that claim.4
On August 9, 2011 OWCP referred appellant, a series of questions, the SOAF, and the
medical record to Dr. Donald Mauldin, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion
examination. It requested that the physician discuss whether appellant had residuals of his workrelated conditions and whether he was capable of performing his full-time job as a letter carrier.
OWCP noted that, if appellant was not capable of returning to his full-time employment, that the
physician should complete a functional capacity evaluation (FCE).
In his September 19, 2011 report, Dr. Mauldin provided findings on physical examination
and a summary of appellant’s past medical history. He noted that an August 2011 magnetic
3
By decision dated June 14, 2012, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 3 percent permanent impairment
of the left lower extremity, 2 percent additional impairment of the left upper extremity, and 11 percent additional
impairment of the right upper extremity, under File No. xxxxxx817. The decision noted that appellant had previously
been awarded five percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity under File No. xxxxxx817, and seven
percent permanent impairment of the left upper extremity under File No. xxxxxx282.
4
The SOAF noted the accepted work-related injuries of sprain of right hip and thigh, sprain of left wrist, lesion of
left ulnar nerve, contusion of left hand, other symptoms referable to right pelvic joint and thigh, and ganglion of
bilateral tendon.

2

resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the right shoulder demonstrated a full-thickness rotator cuff tear.
Dr. Mauldin reported that appellant did not have residuals as it related to his original injury of right
hip and thigh strain and left wrist sprain with development of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). He
noted that appellant had returned back to work with no symptoms of significance until his May 19,
2010 injury. Dr. Mauldin further reported that he was capable of performing his job as a letter
carrier as it related to the original August 29, 2008 injury. He reported that appellant was currently
unable to return to full-time unrestricted work due to continued problems with his right shoulder
which was due to a different injury. As disability pertaining to appellant’s right shoulder did not
relate to his August 29, 2008 injury, an FCE was unnecessary. Dr. Mauldin concluded that
appellant could return to work without restrictions as his right hip strain/contusion and left wrist
strain with CTS had resolved. He noted that his primary restriction would be relative to the right
shoulder with any overhead lifting or heavy lifting on a recurrent basis due to a fall at work on
May 19, 2010.
On January 4, 2012 OWCP provided Dr. Daniel C. Valdez, a Board-certified orthopedic
surgeon and appellant’s attending physician, a copy of Dr. Mauldin’s report for review and
comment pertaining to appellant’s disability. On January 9, 2012 Dr. Valdez reported that he
disagreed with Dr. Mauldin’s findings that appellant was no longer disabled as a result of his
employment-related injury and that he could return to work.
On January 26, 2012 OWCP referred appellant, a January 26, 2012 SOAF,5 the case file, a
medical conflict statement, and a series of questions to Dr. John Anderson, a Board-certified
orthopedic surgeon, for an impartial medical evaluation in order to resolve the conflict between
Dr. Valdez and Dr. Mauldin regarding whether appellant’s work-related injuries had resolved and
if he could return to his date-of-injury position as a letter carrier.
On February 9, 2012 appellant underwent an FCE for the left wrist and left hand performed
by Doreen Ruiz, a physical therapist (PT). PT Ruiz reported that appellant’s usual and customary
job required a medium physical demand classification level while his FCE revealed that he could
function at the sedentary physical demand classification.
In a March 5, 2012 medical report, Dr. Anderson evaluated appellant and provided findings
on physical examination. He reported that appellant suffered from a rotator cuff tear and a lateral
meniscus tear. Dr. Anderson further noted that appellant had carpal tunnel releases and carpal
tunnel syndrome, a right hip sprain which resolved, and a right knee of unknown extent. He
reported that appellant was capable of returning to work at his usual job as a letter carrier.
Dr. Anderson noted that he was at high risk for another injury since he had significant injuries in
the past from simple slip and fall injuries, which should normally not cause too much injury. He
5

The January 26, 2012 SOAF listed appellant’s accepted conditions under both master and subsidiary claims. It
also noted the duties of a city carrier reporting, “Duties consist of handling heavy sacks of letter mail, parcel post and
paper mail for sorting and distribution. Cases mail for delivery by sorting it in a rack, requires repetitive arm
movements. May serve on many routes in all kinds of weather, drive trucks in all kinds of traffic under all road
conditions, mount and dismount approximately 20 to 25 times per delivery day, deliver parcel post from trucks, collect
mail from boxes. May be required to carry mailbag weighing up to 35 pounds on shoulder. To deliver from a vehicle,
must place mail in trays and carry the trays to the vehicle; reaches out of the vehicle with the right hand to deposit
mail and/or parcels in receptacles. Throughout the day must rearrange mail trays requiring extension of the arm and
shoulder. Physical requirements are intermittent sitting, walking, standing, bending, squatting, climbing, twisting of
the body, and lifting up to 70 pounds.”

3

reported that appellant’s lack of range of motion in his shoulder needed to be considered as he
should not be doing any overhead work of a significant degree at the present time, however, it was
not contraindicated, but rather that his tolerance would not allow it. Dr. Anderson noted that stairs
and steps would be a significant problem for appellant due to his injuries to the knee, but they were
not contraindicated. He reported that appellant could try to return to work in his usual position
and if he could do it fine, and if he could not perform his duties then some other type of position
would be necessary. With regard to which accepted work conditions had resolved, Dr. Anderson
reported that appellant’s right hip sprain and left hand and wrist problems had resolved. He noted
that his left knee was stable and had essentially resolved, although appellant continued to complain
of pain. Dr. Anderson reported that appellant’s shoulder had not returned to normal, but the
amount of symptom magnification led him to suspect that it was probably better than he related.
In a work capacity evaluation form (OWCP-5c), he reported that appellant could return to fulltime unrestricted work.
On April 9, 2012 OWCP notified appellant of a proposal to terminate his wage-loss
compensation benefits based on Dr. Anderson’s March 5, 2012 report that he no longer had any
disability causally related to his employment injuries. It found that Dr. Anderson’s report
demonstrated that his accepted work injury no longer prevented him from returning to his fullduty position. OWCP provided appellant 30 days to submit additional information.
By letter dated April 30, 2012, counsel reported that there was confusion on the part of
OWCP regarding appellant’s two separate OWCP files under No. xxxxxx817 and No. xxxxxx282,
and that medical documentation was being placed in the wrong file. He requested additional time
to submit additional medical reports.
By decision dated May 9, 2012, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation
benefits effective June 3, 2012, finding that the special weight of the medical evidence rested with
Dr. Anderson who found that appellant no longer had residual disability as a result of his workrelated injuries.6 It did not terminate appellant’s entitlement to medical benefits.
On May 9, 2013 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of OWCP’s
termination decision. Counsel argued that Dr. Anderson’s report was not entitled to the special
weight of the medical evidence.
In support of his request for reconsideration, counsel submitted medical reports from
Dr. Valdez dated October 14 and November 14, 2012. Dr. Valdez noted that appellant had been
off work for injuries involving the left knee meniscus tear with surgery, left wrist traumatic
ganglion cyst, CTS with surgery, and right shoulder rotator cuff tear with surgery. He noted that
appellant had to return to work based on the recommendation of a second opinion physician, which

6

The record reflects that on May 10, 2012, appellant returned to work as a letter carrier. He stopped working on
May 20, 2012 and filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging a worsening of his employment injuries.
OWCP assigned File No. xxxxxx236. Appellant alleged pain and swelling in both his shoulders, arms, and wrists,
left knee, right leg, neck, and lower back as a result of his employment duties. By decisions dated August 6, 2012 and
January 14, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim finding that the evidence of record failed to
establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related to his federal employment duties. By decision dated April 23,
2015, the Board affirmed a July 1, 2014 OWCP decision denying appellant’s request for reconsideration as untimely
filed and failing to demonstrate clear evidence of error. Docket No. 15-472 (issued April 23, 2015).

4

resulted in a subsequent knee and wrist aggravation, as well as a new injury to the lumbar and
cervical spine on May 10, 2012. Dr. Valdez diagnosed displacement of lumbar and cervical disc.
By decision dated August 7, 2013, OWCP denied modification of the May 9, 2012 decision
terminating appellant’s wage-loss compensation benefits. It determined that the evidence of record
failed to support that the accepted conditions from this claim for right hip and thigh sprain, left
sprain of wrist, left lesion of ulnar nerve, left contusion of hand, and left ganglion of tendon
continued to be totally disabling. OWCP further reported that the medical reports which counsel
contended were not provided to Dr. Anderson were not present in OWCP File No. xxxxxx282.
On August 1, 2014 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of OWCP’s
decision. Counsel argued that Dr. Anderson could not resolve a conflict in medical opinion as
both Dr. Mauldin, serving as the second opinion physician, and Dr. Valdez indicated that he could
not return to full unrestricted duty as a result of his right shoulder condition. He argued that
Dr. Anderson did not determine that appellant’s right shoulder condition had resolved, and failed
to request an FCE pertaining to his left knee or right shoulder. Dr. Anderson failed to provide a
rationalized opinion as to why appellant could return to full-duty work despite issues relating to
his left knee and right shoulder. Counsel argued that the physician failed to consider appellant’s
employment duties and contradicted the medical findings which showed that appellant could not
return to full duty. As such, Dr. Anderson’s report was not entitled to the special weight of the
medical evidence.
In a July 19, 2014 report, Dr. Valdez discussed appellant’s injuries and treatment following
his return to work. He reported that appellant’s dysfunction pertaining to his shoulder, wrist, and
knee resulted in additional strain to his cervical and lumbar spine than would normally occur,
placing increased force at the disc levels which created the cervical and lumbar disc displacement.
Dr. Valdez explained that his employment duties following his return to work were a direct cause
of his injury, which required repetitively lifting boxes weighing 40 pounds. He reported that
Dr. Anderson acknowledged that there was a high risk of reinjury, and it was unclear why appellant
was then released back to a job which exceeded his physical capacity.
By decision dated November 3, 2014, OWCP denied modification of the August 7, 2013
decision. It found that the special weight of the medical evidence rested with Dr. Anderson’s
March 5, 2012 report which established that appellant was no longer disabled due to his accepted
work-related injuries under OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx282 and xxxxxx817.7

7

OWCP reported that appellant was paid full lost wages from February 19, 2011 to June 2, 2012 under this claim,
OWCP File No. xxxxxx282, but his job offer was under OWCP File No. xxxxxx817 dated September 27, 2010 which
required lifting five-pound parcels for one hour per day, reaching above the left shoulder intermittently for one hour
per day to case, standing to case mail with left arm for two hours per day, walking while loading/unloading vehicle
and/or in office for up to two hours per day, and grasping mail while casing or delivering for up to eight hours. It
noted that his job offer did not indicate that he was required to lift 40 pounds as indicated in Dr. Valdez’s July 19,
2014 report.

5

On October 30, 2015 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of OWCP’s
decision and asserted prior arguments made. In support of his claim, appellant submitted medical
reports dated May 20 through July 22, 2015 from Dr. Valdez documenting his medical treatment.8
By decision dated January 27, 2016, OWCP denied modification of its November 3, 2014
decision, finding that the special weight of the medical evidence rested with Dr. Anderson serving
as the impartial medical examiner.
On January 23, 2017 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of OWCP’s
decision. Counsel referred to medical reports from Dr. Valdez which established that appellant
was disabled due to problems with his right shoulder, left wrist, and right hip. He further noted
that a September 30, 2016 MRI scan of the right and left shoulder established continued injury.
Medical reports dated December 3, 2015 through January 12, 2017 were submitted from
Dr. Valdez. In an October 5, 2016 report, Dr. Valdez noted that a September 30, 2016 MRI scan
of the left shoulder revealed degenerative changes, rotator cuff tendinopathy with a full-thickness
tear of the supraspinatus tendon, and subacromial ﬂuid and bursitis. A right shoulder MRI scan
revealed postoperative changes, degenerative changes, rotator cuff tendinopathy with a probable
full-thickness tear at the anterior insertion of the supraspinatus tendon with bursitis, and ﬂuid in
the subacromial space. Dr. Valdez diagnosed left shoulder rotator cuff syndrome impingement
and severe and chronic right shoulder pain, related to the August 29, 2008 employment injury. He
reported that appellant was disabled due to his left knee, left wrist, and bilateral shoulder injuries.
Dr. Valdez further reported that appellant’s recent cervical spine surgery also rendered him
disabled, noting that his injuries and surgeries were cumulative and rendered him incapable of
returning to work.
By decision dated March 24, 2017, OWCP denied modification of its January 27, 2016
decision, finding that the special weight of the medical evidence rested with Dr. Anderson’s
March 5, 2012 impartial medical evaluation.
LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1
Once OWCP has accepted a claim and pays compensation, it bears the burden to justify
modification or termination of benefits.9 Having determined that an employee has a disability
causally related to his or her federal employment, OWCP may not terminate compensation without
establishing either that the disability has ceased or that it is no longer related to the employment.10

8

The Board notes that on September 3, 2015 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). In support
of his claim, he provided a July 22, 2015 impairment evaluation from Dr. Valdez which was reviewed by an OWCP
district medical adviser (DMA) on September 17, 2015. By decision dated September 9, 2015, OWCP granted
appellant a schedule award for five percent permanent impairment of the right lower extremity for his right hip injury.
9

Bernadine P. Taylor, 54 ECAB 342 (2003).

10

Id.

6

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1
The Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation benefits.11
The Board finds initially that the August 9, 2011 SOAF used by Dr. Mauldin for his second
opinion evaluation was deficient as it failed to provide pertinent information regarding the case.12
Dr. Mauldin was asked to determine whether appellant had residuals of his accepted conditions
and whether he could return to his full-time employment as a letter carrier, but the SOAF failed to
identify appellant’s accepted May 19, 2010 employment-related conditions of right shoulder
sprain, sprain of left elbow, left wrist sprain, left chondromalacia patella, and tear of medial
meniscus left knee under OWCP File No. xxxxxx817. He therefore used an inaccurate SOAF as
his framework when he opined that appellant could return to full-time unrestricted work.
Dr. Mauldin explained that as appellant’s disability related to his right shoulder, an FCE was
unnecessary. OWCP procedures and Board precedent indicate that when an OWCP medical
adviser, second opinion specialist, or referee physician renders a medical opinion based on a SOAF
which is incomplete or inaccurate, or does not use the SOAF as the framework in forming his or
her opinion, the probative value of the opinion is seriously diminished or negated altogether.13
Dr. Mauldin was not provided an accurate framework regarding appellant’s accepted employmentrelated conditions and as such, his opinion is of limited probative value and is therefore insufficient
to create a conflict in medical opinion.14
Dr. Anderson was selected to resolve the conflict of medical opinion as to whether
appellant still had residuals of the accepted employment injuries. As no conflict existed in the
medical evidence at the time of this referral, the Board finds that his report may not be afforded
the special weight of an impartial medical specialist and should be considered for its own intrinsic
value.15
In his March 5, 2012 report, Dr. Anderson reported that appellant suffered from a rotator
cuff tear and a lateral meniscus tear of the left knee. He determined that appellant was capable of
returning to work at his usual job as a letter carrier. However, Dr. Anderson failed to provide a
sufficient explanation explaining why, despite diminished examination findings pertaining to the
right shoulder, appellant was able to resume his normal and customary employment duties. He
noted that appellant could resume regular-duty work, but should not perform any overhead work
due to lack of range of motion. This opinion fails to establish that his right shoulder condition had
resolved without the need for any work restrictions. In fact, Dr. Anderson reported that appellant’s
11

N.C., Docket No. 15-1855 (issued June 3, 2016).

12
Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Statements of Accepted Facts, Chapter 2.809.5
(September 2009); see also Darletha Coleman, 55 ECAB 143 (2003).
13

FECA Procedure Manual, id. at Chapter 2.809.4. See also A.C., Docket No. 07-2423 (issued May 15, 2008).
The Board held that the SOAF did not accurately reflect the conditions OWCP accepted as employment related and,
therefore, the physician’s report was of diminished probative value, and insufficient to resolve the conflict in medical
opinion.
14

L.J., Docket No. 14-1682 (issued December 11, 2015).

15

See Cleopatra McDougal-Saddler, 47 ECAB 480 (1996).

7

right shoulder injury had not resolved. He further contradicted himself by indicating that appellant
required no restrictions even though stairs and steps would be a significant problem for him due
to his knee injury. Dr. Anderson’s recommendation was vague and speculative, noting that if
appellant could not perform his duties adequately then he could try another position.16 His report
is not sufficiently well rationalized to establish that appellant was no longer disabled due to his
accepted employment injuries.17
The Board finds, therefore, that OWCP erred by terminating appellant’s compensation
effective June 3, 2012.18
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation benefits.19
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 24, 2017 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed.
Issued: September 6, 2018
Washington, DC

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

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

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
16

H.W., Docket No. 15-1126 (issued August 15, 2016).

17

V.C., Docket No. 11-1561 (issued February 15, 2012).

18

Fay Johnson, Docket No. 04-1358 (issued September 30, 2004).

19

Given the disposition of the first issue, the Board finds that the second issue of continuing disability is moot.

8


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
V.G., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL
CENTER, Murfreesboro, TN, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Docket No. 17-0067
Issued: April 5, 2017

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On October 17, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from merit decisions of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) dated July 28 and October 4, 2016. Pursuant to the
Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board
has jurisdiction to consider the merits of this case.
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish that her right foot
conditions were causally related to factors of her federal employment.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On May 26, 2016 appellant, then a 56-year-old health technician, filed an occupational
disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that on December 12, 2015 she first became aware of two
1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

bone spurs in her right foot. On May 20, 2016 she first realized this condition was due to her
standing on her feet at work for the past 33 years. Appellant stopped work on May 19, 2016.
By correspondence dated June 15, 2016, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of
record was insufficient to support her claim. Appellant was advised regarding the medical and
factual evidence required to establish her claim and was afforded 30 days to provide this
evidence.
OWCP thereafter received a May 20, 2016 report from Dr. Jared C. Bramlett, a treating
podiatrist. Dr. Bramlett noted that appellant was seen for complaints of severe foot pain, with
the right foot being more painful. He noted that she was required to stand on her feet at work
and had worked at the employing establishment for over 30 years. An examination revealed
intact bilateral neurovascular status, medial right ankle edema extending into the medial heel and
plantar fascia, significant pain on palpation of the right plantar fascia insertion and plantar fascial
band, right tibial tendon pain, and decreased left plantar insertion, plantar fascia, and posterior
tendon pain. A review of x-ray interpretations revealed two inferior calcaneal spurrings on the
right and one on the left, significant mid-foot breakdown, and bilateral degenerative joint
disease, which was worse on the right side. Dr. Bramlett diagnosed calcaneal spur syndrome,
plantar fasciitis, and degenerative joint disease. In an attached disability note, he diagnosed
plantar fasciitis, stress fracture, bilateral arthritis, and bilateral calcaneal spurs. Dr. Bramlett
indicated that appellant was disabled from work until August 12, 2016. He also related that she
was to use an ambulatory boot and was required to limit her weight bearing.
In a report dated May 23, 2016 and signed on May 24, 2016, Dr. Bramlett reported that
appellant was seen for significant heel and foot pain and that she had worked for the employing
establishment for 30 years. Diagnoses included calcaneal spur syndrome with degenerative joint
disease, plantar fasciitis, and right foot calcaneal stress fracture. Physical examination findings
and findings from review of x-ray interpretations were unchanged from his prior report.
Dr. Bramlett, in a report dated June 9, 2016, noted that appellant was seen in a follow-up
visit for calcaneal stress fracture, peroneal tendinitis, plantar fasciitis, and posterior tibial tendon
dysfunction. Examination findings included significant right foot decreased edema and
decreased pain in the plantar fascia and peroneal tendon, posterior tibial tendon, and insertion.
In a July 7, 2016 report, Dr. Bramlett provided a history of his treatment of appellant with
an initial evaluation in May 2016 for complaints of severe right foot pain which began in
October 2015. He noted appellant’s work history and foot complaints. Dr. Bramlett provided a
summary of physical examination findings from his prior reports and findings from review of
two x-ray interpretations. Diagnoses included calcaneal spur syndrome, chronic plantar fasciitis,
some subtalar joint arthritis, and bilateral degenerative joint disease, more prominent on the
right. Dr. Bramlett attributed the diagnosed conditions to biomechanical factors.
By decision dated July 28, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that the
medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a causal relationship between the
diagnosed conditions and the accepted employment factors.

2

In a form dated August 29, 2016, received by OWCP on September 28, 2016, appellant
requested reconsideration.
In an accompanying statement dated September 18, 2016, appellant described the duties
she performed while working for the employing establishment for approximately 30 years. She
stated that she was required to do a lot of walking and standing. Appellant alleged that the
prolonged walking and standing required of her job was hard on her feet, knees, and back. She
also alleged that walking and standing was aggravating her sciatic nerve.
By decision dated October 4, 2016, OWCP denied modification. It found the evidence of
record failed to establish that the diagnosed foot conditions had been caused or aggravated by the
accepted employment factors.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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 filed within the applicable time
limitation, that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any
disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the
employment injury.3 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim
regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4
To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in a claim for
occupational disease, 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.5
Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence generally required to
establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.6 Rationalized medical
opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on
whether there is a causal relationship between the employee’s diagnosed condition and the
compensable employment factors.7 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete
2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3

C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006).

4

S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5

D.U., Docket No. 10-144 (issued July 27, 2010); R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008); Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238
(2005); Donald W. Wenzel, 56 ECAB 390 (2005).
6

Y.J., Docket No. 08-1167 (issued October 7, 2008); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); D’Wayne Avila, 57 ECAB
642 (2006).
7

J.J., Docket No. 09-27 (issued February 10, 2009); Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379 (2006).

3

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 factors identified by the employee.8
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that appellant failed to meet her burden of proof to establish that the
identified employment factors caused or aggravated her right foot conditions. Appellant
identified the factors of employment that she believed caused the condition, including prolonged
walking and standing for over 30 years at work. OWCP accepted these activities as factors of
her federal employment. However, in order to establish a claim for an employment-related
injury, appellant must also submit rationalized medical evidence which explains how her medical
condition was caused or aggravated by the accepted employment factors.9
The issue of causal relationship is a medical one and must be resolved by a probative
medical opinion from a physician.10 OWCP received a July 7, 2016 report from Dr. Bramlett
diagnosing chronic plantar fasciitis, subtalar joint arthritis, calcaneal spur syndrome, and bilateral
degenerative joint disease. Dr. Bramlett noted appellant’s work history and attributed her right
foot conditions to biomechanical factors. He did not explain the biomechanical factors he was
referring to or why walking or standing for prolonged periods of time would physiologically
cause or aggravate appellant’s right foot conditions. The Board has found that rationalized
medical opinion evidence must relate specific employment factors identified by the claimant to
the claimant’s condition, with medical rationale explaining how the employment factors
physiologically caused the diagnosed condition.11 The Board has also found that a mere
conclusion without the necessary rationale is insufficient to meet a claimant’s burden of proof.12
Accordingly, Dr. Bramlett’s reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.
Appellant also submitted reports and disability notes from Dr. Bramlett diagnosing
calcaneal spur syndrome, plantar fasciitis, degenerative joint disease, calcaneal spur syndrome
with degenerative joint disease, right foot calcaneal stress, subtalar joint arthritis, and bilateral
joint disease. Dr. Bramlett offered no opinion as to the cause of these conditions in the disability
notes, or the May 20, 23, or June 9, 2016 reports. The Board has held that medical evidence
offering no opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value
on the issue of causal relationship.13
8

I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

9

See A.C., Docket No. 08-1453 (issued November 18, 2008); Donald W. Wenzel, supra note 5.

10

I.A., Docket No. 13-1701 (issued January 17, 2014); Ronald K. Jablanski, 56 ECAB 616 (2005).

11

See T.C., Docket No. 16-1052 (issued November 8, 2016).

12

See T.M., Docket No. 08-975 (issued February 6, 2009); Roma A. Mortenson-Kindschi, 57 ECAB 418 (2006);
William C. Thomas, 45 ECAB 591 (1994) (a medical report is of limited probative value on the issue of causal
relationship if it contains a conclusion regarding causal relationship which is unsupported by medical rationale).
13

C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); J.F., Docket No. 09-1061 (issued November 17, 2009); A.D.,
supra note 6; Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004).

4

The Board has held that the fact that a condition manifests itself during a period of
employment does not raise an inference of causal relation.14 An award of compensation may not
be based on surmise, conjecture, or speculation. Neither the fact that appellant’s condition
became apparent during a period of employment nor the belief that her condition was caused,
precipitated, or aggravated by her employment is sufficient to establish causal relationship.15 To
establish a firm medical diagnosis and causal relationship, appellant must submit a physician’s
report that addresses how her prolonged walking and standing at work for approximately 30
years caused or aggravated the two bone spurs in her right foot or any foot condition.16
OWCP advised appellant that it was her responsibility to provide a comprehensive
medical report which described her symptoms, test results, diagnosis, treatment, and a
rationalized medical opinion causally relating the diagnosed conditions to the accepted factors of
employment. Appellant failed to do so. As there is no probative, rationalized medical evidence
addressing how appellant’s claimed right foot conditions were caused or aggravated by her
employment, she has not met her burden of proof to establish an occupational disease causally
related to factors of employment.
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 that her right
foot conditions were causally related to factors of her federal employment.

14

L.D., Docket No. 09-1503 (issued April 15, 2010); D.I., 59 ECAB 158 (2007); Daniel O. Vasquez, 57 ECAB
559 (2006).
15

See D.U., supra note 5; Robert Broome, 55 ECAB 339 (2004); Anna C. Leanza, 48 ECAB 115 (1996).

16

Michael S. Mina, supra note 7; Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).

5

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decisions of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs dated October 4 and July 28, 2016 are affirmed.
Issued: April 5, 2017
Washington, DC

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

Alec J. Koromilas, 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
__________________________________________
V.C., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Birmingham, AL, Employer
__________________________________________
Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Docket No. 16-0694
Issued: August 19, 2016

Case Submitted on the Record

ORDER REMANDING CASE
Before:
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge
COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

On February 24, 2016 appellant, filed a timely appeal from a February 8, 2016 decision
of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Board has duly considered the
matter and finds that the case is not in posture for a decision.
By decision dated February 8, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation
(Form CA-7) for the period September 9 through October 28, 2015. It advised that appellant had
not responded to its December 28, 2015 letter requesting additional medical evidence supporting
the claim. The Board finds that, in denying appellant’s claim for compensation, OWCP failed to
consider evidence that had been submitted by appellant including an October 9, 2015 report from
Dr. Joneice Toney Morgan and physical therapy reports which were received on January 14,
2016 prior to the issuance of the February 8, 2016 decision. OWCP failed to evaluate this
evidence of record in its February 8, 2016 decision.
Because Board decisions are final with regard to the subject matter appealed,1 it is crucial
that OWCP address all relevant evidence received prior to the issuance of its final decision.2 As
1

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).

2

See William A. Couch, 41 ECAB 548, 553 (1990).

OWCP did not review any relevant evidence, the Board finds that this case is not in posture for
decision.3 On remand, OWCP shall review all evidence of record and, following any further
development of the medical evidence deemed necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision on
appellant’s claim.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 8, 2016 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded to OWCP for further
action consistent with this order of the Board.
Issued: August 19, 2016
Washington, DC

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

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

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3

See H.H., Docket No. 14-1985 (issued June 26, 2015).

2


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
S.G., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION,
MEDICAL CENTER, Murfreesboro, TN,
Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Docket No. 16-0817
Issued: August 3, 2016

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge
COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On March 15, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a January 29,
2016 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 bilateral upper
extremity condition in the performance of duty.
FACTUAL HISTORY
This case has previously been before the Board.
On April 29, 2014 appellant, then a 58-year-old practical nurse, filed an occupational
disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in the
performance of duty on or before April 3, 2014. The employing establishment noted that she had
work limitations related to left shoulder injuries accepted under prior claims: File No.
xxxxxx860, for a left rotator cuff sprain sustained on August 27, 2010; File No. xxxxxx982 for a
left arm sprain with complete rotator cuff rupture and glenoid labrum tear sustained on
September 23, 2011; File No. xxxxxx799 for a left shoulder and rotator cuff sprain sustained on
February 10, 2013.
In a May 6, 2014 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the additional evidence needed to
establish her claim, including a report from her attending physician explaining how and why the
identified work factors would cause the claimed condition.
An April 29, 2014 employing establishment incident report notes that appellant reported
sustaining a cumulative trauma condition to both upper extremities on or before April 3, 2014.
Appellant described “repetitive motion with hands causing numbness, tingling, loss of sensation,
and discoloration of fingertips in both hands following shoulder surgery for work-related
incident.
Appellant provided a June 2, 2014 letter, from Tamaron Dudley an employment
establishment FWCP specialist, attributing the claimed conditions to repetitive upper extremity
motion pushing a medication cart, preparing medication packets, dispensing medication,
computer data entry, blood draws, catheter insertions, ear irrigations, preparing injections, and
lifting and positioning patients. She noted no nonoccupational activities requiring repetitive
upper extremity motions. A supervisor provided an undated letter confirming appellant’s
account of her work duties.
The employing establishment submitted a June 2, 2014 letter controverting the claim,
contending that appellant’s left hand symptoms were either due to left shoulder surgery under
File No. xxxxxx799 or preexisting Reynaud’s syndrome, and that the medical evidence in the
other claim files did not establish causal relationship between work factors and any right hand
symptoms. It also contended that she was studying for a degree in nursing, and able to perform
extended computer data entry as required by her community college courses.

2

Appellant submitted medical evidence, received by OWCP on June 9, 2014.3
Dr. Charles R. Kaelin, an attending Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, provided reports from
March 20 to May 15, 2014, relating her complaints of paresthesias into the left hand. He noted
that appellant worked as a practical nurse. April 7, 2014 electromyography and nerve
conduction velocity studies showed moderate bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and bilateral
ulnar neuropathy near the elbows. Dr. Kaelin diagnosed a left labral tear, bilateral ulnar
neuropathy, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and vascular issues in the left index finger. He
released appellant to regular duty as of May 15, 2014. Dr. Kaelin commented on May 15, 2014
that, based on her description of her job duties, the diagnosed conditions “are related to her
work.”4
By decision dated June 9, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that causal
relationship was not established. It found that she did not submit any evidence in response to its
May 6, 2014 request. OWCP did not address the medical records it had received earlier that day.
Appellant then appealed to the Board. By order issued March 2, 2015,5 the Board
remanded the case to OWCP for consideration of evidence received on June 9, 2014. The Board
found that it was necessary that OWCP review all evidence submitted by a claimant and received
by OWCP prior to issuance of its final decision, even when evidence is received by OWCP the
same day a final decision is issued.6 The facts and law of the case as set forth in the Board’s
decision and order are incorporated herein by reference.
By decision dated April 9, 2015, OWCP denied the claim, finding that the medical
evidence received on June 9, 2015 was insufficient to establish causal relationship. It found that
Dr. Kaelin did not explain how and why work factors would cause bilateral carpal tunnel
syndrome.
In an April 28, 2015 letter, counsel requested a telephonic hearing, held
November 17, 2015. At the hearing, appellant affirmed that her duties of dispensing medication
and writing chart notes involved repetitive fine motor tasks. Following the hearing, counsel
submitted copies of documents previously of record.
The employing establishment responded to the hearing transcript on December 23, 2015
contending that appellant had a “questionable fact of injury” due to nonoccupational activities,
“such as her own business” and going to college full time since approximately 2011.
Appellant provided her December 30, 2015 letter, describing repetitive upper extremity
motions involved in preparing and dispensing pills and injections, pushing syringe plungers,
3

In the electronic version of the case record available to the Board on the present appeal, the received date was
modified to June 17, 2014. However, records from the prior appeal confirm that OWCP initially imaged this
evidence into the case record on June 9, 2014.
4

Appellant also provided an unsigned chart note, and a 1998 preemployment physical noting no upper extremity
issues.
5

Docket No. 15-0018 (issued March 2, 2015).

6

See Linda Johnson, 45 ECAB 439 (1994).

3

pushing a medication cart weighing more than 400 pounds, keyboarding, and assisting morbidly
obese patients. She also submitted additional medical evidence.
In an October 21, 2014 report, Dr. Kaelin diagnosed worsening bilateral carpal tunnel and
cubital tunnel syndrome, and a triangular fibrocartilage complex tear of the right wrist.
In a December 30, 2015 report, Dr. Jonathan Head, an attending Board-certified family
practitioner, asserted that appellant used “her hands all day at work, and based on her job
description, it [was] very reasonable to state that her carpal tunnel syndrome is work related.”7
By decision dated January 29, 2016, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s
April 9, 2015 decision, finding that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish that work
factors caused or contributed to the claimed upper extremity conditions. The hearing
representative noted that while Dr. Head and Dr. Kaelin opined that it was “reasonable” that
repetitive upper extremity motions at worked caused carpal tunnel or cubital tunnel syndrome,
neither physician explained the medical reasons that would support causal relationship.
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 filed within the applicable
time limitation; that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged; and that
any disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to
the employment injury.8 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim
regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.9
An occupational disease is defined as a condition produced by the work environment
over a period longer than a single workday or shift.10 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) 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.

7

Appellant also provided a November 3, 2014 left wrist magnetic resonance imaging scan report showing a fullthickness tear of the central triangular fibrocartilage, and ulnar impaction syndrome.
8

Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

9

See Irene St. John, 50 ECAB 521 (1999); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).

10

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q).

4

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is generally rationalized
medical opinion evidence. Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which
includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship
between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors. The
opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the
claimant, must be one of reasonable medial 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.11
ANALYSIS
Appellant claimed that she sustained bilateral upper extremity conditions in the
performance of duty on or before April 3, 2014. In support of her claim, she submitted reports
from Dr. Kaelin, an attending Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed bilateral carpal
tunnel and ulnar tunnel syndromes, confirmed by April 7, 2014 electrodiagnostic studies.
Dr. Kaelin opined on May 15, 2014 that, based on appellant’s description, the diagnosed carpal
tunnel an ulnar neuropathy syndromes were “related to her work.” Dr. Head, an attending
Board-certified family practitioner, provided a December 30, 2015 report opining that it was
“very reasonable” that her carpal tunnel syndrome was work related. However, he did not set
forth any medical reasoning for his opinion supporting causal relationship, or discuss why
specific job duties would cause or aggravate the claimed conditions. Because Dr. Kaelin and
Dr. Head did not explain how and why dispensing medication, pushing a medication cart,
performing data entry, and moving patients would cause bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and
ulnar neuropathy, their opinions are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.12
OWCP advised appellant by May 6, 2014 letter of the necessity of providing her
physician’s well-reasoned opinion explaining how and why work factors would cause a bilateral
upper extremity condition. As appellant did not submit such evidence, OWCP properly denied
the claim.
Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for
reconsideration to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a)
and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a bilateral
upper extremity condition in the performance of duty.

11

Solomon Polen, 51 ECAB 341 (2000).

12

Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340 (2003).

5

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs dated January 29, 2016 is affirmed.
Issued: August 3, 2016
Washington, DC

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

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

6


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
B.C., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
SOUTHERN NEW HEALTH CARE SYSTEM,
North Las Vegas, NV, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Docket No. 12-1742
Issued: February 6, 2013

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge
MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On August 9, 2012 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 29, 2012 decision of the
Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) which affirmed the denial of
compensation benefits. 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
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant established that she had any continuing disability or
residuals related to her accepted conditions after March 9, 2010.

1
2

5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193.

With her request for an appeal, appellant submitted additional evidence. However, the Board may not consider
new evidence on appeal; see 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c).

FACTUAL HISTORY
This case has previously been before the Board. In a November 24, 2006 decision, the
Board found that OWCP did not meet its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s compensation
benefits as there was a conflict in the medical evidence.3 In a November 23, 2011 decision, the
Board found that OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate benefits effective March 9, 2010
based on the report of the referee physician who found that appellant had no residuals of her
accepted lumbar strain, right rotator cuff condition.4 The facts and circumstances of the case as
set forth in the Board’s prior decisions are incorporated herein by reference.
On December 20, 2011 appellant requested reconsideration. In statements dated
March 12 to June 6, 2012, she asserted that she continued to have residuals of her accepted
conditions and required surgery. Appellant submitted reports of diagnostic testing that included
an electromyogram dated November 7, 2005. It was suggestive of a lesion causing bilateral L4,
L5 and S1 sensory radiculopathy. An August 16, 2006 lumbar magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) scan revealed scoliotic curvature of the thoracolumbar spine, lateral disc protrusion at L23 and facet hypertrophy at L3-4, L4-5 and L5-S1. A December 14, 2011 MRI scan of the lumbar
spine revealed L4-5 anterolisthesis with a broad-based disc bulge, facet arthropathy, central canal
narrowing and foraminal narrowing, as compared to the previous study the condition has
worsened, multilevel degenerative changes, disc bulges, facet arthropathy and scoliosis. A
December 27, 2011 x-ray of the lumbar spine revealed scoliosis with mild disc disease and right
abdominal calcification. Appellant also provided physical therapy records.
Appellant was treated by Dr. Samuel Bauzon, a Board-certified internist, on July 18,
2006 for right leg and hip pain after a fall at home on July 4, 2006. Dr. Bauzon noted that her
history was significant for a work injury in February 2005 and a car accident in June 2005. He
diagnosed benign essential hypertension, menopause, hypothyroidism and backache. In a
January 17, 2012 report, Dr. Bauzon diagnosed history of back pain, insomnia, benign
hypertension, chronic kidney disease, obesity, hypothyroidism, lumbago, bulging disc, lumbar
radiculopathy at L3 and major depression.
Dr. Walter Kidwell, a Board-certified anesthesiologist, treated appellant from
November 30, 2011 to February 1, 2012 for severe low back pain and right leg radicular pain.
3

Docket No. 06-1249 (issued November 24, 2006).

4

Docket No. 11-101 (issued November 23, 2011). OWCP accepted that on February 10, 2005 appellant, a health
technician sustained a lumbar strain. Appellant stopped work on February 10, 2005 and did not return. On June 2,
2005 she was in a motor vehicle accident after undergoing authorized physical therapy for her accepted injury and
had injuries to her shoulder and neck. Subsequently, OWCP accepted the June 2, 2005 motor vehicle injuries of the
right shoulder and right rotator cuff repair on September 14, 2005 as consequential to the February 10, 2005 work
injury. The referee physician, Dr. Anthony B. Serfustini, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, provided an
April 28, 2009 report finding that appellant had no objective findings due to the accepted conditions. He opined that
by October 2005 appellant had reached maximum medical improvement with regard to her February 10 and June 2,
2005 injuries and reverted back to her base line chronic lumbar pain syndrome. Dr. Serfustini noted nonindustrial
diagnoses of degenerative disc disease at L4-5, degenerative facet disease at L4-5, L5-S1, chronic lumbar pain
syndrome, morbid obesity, symptom-magnification, pain behavior, chronic anxiety syndrome and narcotic
dependency. In a January 13, 2010 supplemental report, he opined that appellant did not have any residuals of her
work injuries.

2

He diagnosed lumbar discopathy with radiculitis and radiculopathy and referred her to a surgeon.
On February 1, 2012 appellant was treated by Dr. David Haas, a Board-certified orthopedic
surgeon, who noted that she was three weeks postlumbar fusion and progressing well with
reduced pain. Dr. Haas diagnosed low back pain radiating into the lower extremities and advised
that he would see her back in three weeks.
Appellant provided treatment records from Dr. Reynold Rimoldi, a Board-certified
orthopedic surgeon. On August 7, 2006 she reported that her symptoms began when she fell at
work in February 2005 and were aggravated by a June 2005 automobile accident. Dr. Rimoldi
noted that appellant was ambulating with a walker, had diffuse tenderness of the lumbar spine,
limited range of motion, intact motor and sensory examination in the upper and lower extremities
with diminished reflexes. He diagnosed chronic lumbar enthesopathy with mild degenerative
spondylolisthesis at L4-5. Dr. Rimoldi recommended epidural injections. In reports dated
January 9, 18 and 20, 2012, he noted that conservative treatment had failed and recommended
surgery. On January 20, 2012 Dr. Rimoldi performed an L4, L5 laminotomy, bilateral L4, L5
nerve root foraminotomies, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, posterolateral fusion,
bilateral L4 interior hemi-facetectomy and discectomy of the L4-5 with interbody fusion. He
diagnosed spinal stenosis and instability secondary to degenerative L4-5 spondylolisthesis. On
February 6, 2012 Dr. Rimoldi noted that appellant was doing satisfactorily after surgery.
In a decision dated June 29, 2012, OWCP denied modification of the prior decision.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
As OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s compensation benefits, the
burden shifted to appellant to establish that she had continuing disability causally related to her
accepted employment injury.5 To establish causal relationship between the claimed disability
and the employment injury, she must submit rationalized medical opinion evidence based on a
complete factual and medical background supporting such a causal relationship.6
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that appellant has not established continuing residuals of her workrelated lumbar strain or right shoulder rotator cuff tear from the June 2, 2005 motor vehicle
accident.
The Board’s November 23, 2011 decision affirmed the termination of appellant’s
compensation benefits. Appellant requested reconsideration and submitted additional medical
evidence. Reports from Dr. Rimoldi dated August 7, 2006 to February 6, 2012 noted treating
appellant for lumbar spine pain radiating into both legs. These reports noted appellant’s
symptoms and diagnoses. On January 20, 2012 Dr. Rimoldi performed an L4-5 decompression
and fusion. However, neither report provides medical reasoning to explain how any continuing
residual condition was causally related to the February 10, 2005 work injury. The Board has
5

See Joseph A. Brown, Jr., 55 ECAB 542 (2004); Manuel Gill, 52 ECAB 282 (2001).

6

Daniel F. O’Donnell, Jr., 54 ECAB 456 (2003).

3

found that unrationalized medical opinions on causal relationship or of diminished probative
value.7 These reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.
Dr. Bauzon’s July 18, 2006 report predates the termination of benefits and his
January 17, 2012, report does not address the cause of the diagnosed conditions. Similarly, on
February 1, 2012 Dr. Haas diagnosed low back pain radiating into the lower extremities.
Likewise, reports from Dr. Kidwell dated November 30, 2011 to February 1, 2012 diagnosed
lumbar discopathy with radiculitis and radiculopathy.8 However, these reports are insufficient to
establish an ongoing work-related condition as none of the physicians provide medical reasoning
to explain how any continuing condition was causally related to appellant’s employment. Other
medical reports, such as diagnostic test reports, are insufficient to establish a continuing workrelated condition.9 Therefore, these reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.10
None of the reports submitted by appellant after the termination of benefits included a
rationalized opinion regarding the causal relationship between her current condition and her
employment injuries. Consequently, appellant did not establish that she had any employmentrelated condition or disability after March 9, 2010.
On appeal appellant asserted that she continued to have residuals of her accepted
condition and was in constant pain. The Board notes that appellant failed to submit a report from
a physician which provided a rationalized opinion relating appellant’s current condition to the
work-related injury.
Appellant may submit any 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 failed to establish that she had any continuing disability
due to her accepted condition after March 9, 2010.
7

See Theron J. Barham, 34 ECAB 1070 (1983).

8

Dr. Kidwell submitted previous medical opinion which created the medical conflict that was resolved by
Dr. Serfustini. See supra note 3. The Board has held that submitting a report from a physician who was on one side
of a medical conflict that an impartial specialist resolved is, generally, insufficient to overcome the weight accorded
to the report of the impartial medical examiner or to create a new conflict. Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004).
The Board notes that Dr. Kidwell’s reports did not contain new findings or rationale on causal relationship upon
which a new conflict might be based.
9

See Asaramo, supra note 8.

10

Appellant also submitted physical therapy records. However, the Board has held that physical therapists are
not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA. See David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316 (2006) (lay
individuals such as physician’s assistants, nurses and physical therapists are not competent to render a medical
opinion under FECA); 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2) (this subsection defines a “physician” as surgeons, podiatrists, dentists,
clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as
defined by State law).

4

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs dated June 29, 2012 is affirmed.
Issued: February 6, 2013
Washington, DC

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

5