United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
J.F., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Columbus, OH, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Docket No. 14-1039
Issued: August 15, 2014

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Acting Chief Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge
JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On March 26, 2014 appellant, through her attorney, filed a timely appeal from a
November 6, 2013 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP)
which denied her claim for an employment-related injury. 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.
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained a
right shoulder condition in the performance of duty causally related to factors of her federal
employment.
On appeal, counsel contends that OWCP improperly weighed the evidence of record and
argues that appellant submitted strong medical evidence showing causation.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

FACTUAL HISTORY
On April 22, 2013 appellant, then a 58-year-old rural carrier, filed an occupational
disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained a right shoulder condition due to factors
of her federal employment, including casing, pulling, loading, marking and sorting mail and
opening and closing mailbox doors. She indicated that she first became aware of her condition
and attributed it to her employment on January 2, 2013.
In an April 17, 2013 report, Dr. Stephen J. Pomeranz, a Board-certified neuroradiologist,
indicated that appellant had shoulder pain and tenderness for three to four months and diagnosed
supraspinatus tendinopathy, anterior rotator interval inflammation and subscapularis tendinosis
based upon his review of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the right shoulder that
same day.
In a May 22, 2013 letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of her claim and
afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence and respond to its inquiries.
Appellant submitted a narrative statement dated June 4, 2013 indicating that outside of
her federal employment she engaged in the following activities: yard work, laundry, house
cleaning, computer work, walking and no sports.
In a June 4, 2013 report, Dr. Marc C. Schneider, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon,
indicated that appellant worked as a mail carrier and had right shoulder anterior pain since
January 2, 2013. He indicated that her pain bothered her with casing and delivering mail and
increased with repetitive motion. Dr. Schneider diagnosed disorders of bursae and tendons in the
shoulder region and bicipital tenosynovitis. He reviewed an MRI scan of the right shoulder and
found rotator cuff tendinopathy and bicipital tendinitis with possible subluxation long head
biceps. On June 28, 2013 Dr. Schneider diagnosed right shoulder and upper arm sprain and
strain and indicated that appellant continued to have right anterolateral shoulder pain radiating to
biceps.
By decision dated July 11, 2013, OWCP denied the claim on the basis that the medical
evidence failed to establish a causal relationship between appellant’s condition and factors of her
federal employment.
On August 13, 2013 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted
a narrative statement indicating that she was in rehabilitation with a center in Milford, Ohio. She
also submitted a July 13, 2013 report from Dr. Mina C. Kalfas, a Board-certified family
practitioner, who conducted a preoperation examination for a right shoulder arthroscopy.
In a June 4, 2013 report, Dr. Schneider took appellant off work until July 1, 2013 and
estimated her return effective July 2, 2013. On June 28, 2013 he took her off work until
August 5, 2013.
On July 16, 2013 appellant underwent a right shoulder arthroscopy performed by
Dr. Schneider.

2

In an August 8, 2013 report, Dr. Schneider stated that appellant had been under his care
since June 3, 2013 for right shoulder pain which she developed while working on
January 2, 2013. He indicated that at the time of surgery she had a high-grade partial thickness
tear of the biceps tendon. Dr. Schneider opined that this was directly and causally related to the
work appellant had done and the injury which occurred on January 2, 2013 in her role as a rural
carrier.
On August 9, 2013 Dr. Schneider diagnosed right shoulder partial tear of longhead of
biceps and labral tear. He checked a box “yes” indicating that appellant’s condition was caused
or aggravated by an employment activity and opined that she was totally disabled for work as of
June 3, 2013, with an estimated date of return effective September 3, 2013.
By decision dated November 6, 2013, OWCP denied modification of the July 11, 2013
decision.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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 and that an injury3 was sustained in the performance of duty. These
are the essential elements of each compensation claim, regardless of whether the claim is
predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4
To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in a claim for an
occupational disease claim, an employee must submit the following: (1) a factual statement
identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or
occurrence of the disease or condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence or
existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical
evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the 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 evidence. 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

2

Id.

3

OWCP regulations define an occupational disease or illness as a condition produced by the work environment
over a period longer than a single workday or shift. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q).
4

See O.W., Docket No. 09-2110 (issued April 22, 2010); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004).

5

See D.R., Docket No. 09-1723 (issued May 20, 2010). See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005);
Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).

3

the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors identified
by the employee.6
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish a claim that
federal employment factors caused or aggravated her right shoulder condition. Appellant
submitted a statement in which she identified the factors of employment that she believed caused
the condition, including casing, pulling, loading, marking and sorting mail and opening and
closing mailbox doors. OWCP accepted her description as factual. However, in order to
establish a claim that appellant sustained an employment-related injury, she must also submit
rationalized medical evidence which explains how her medical conditions were caused or
aggravated by the implicated employment factors.7
In his reports, Dr. Schneider diagnosed right shoulder and upper arm sprain and strain,
disorders of bursae and tendons in the shoulder region and bicipital tenosynovitis and performed
a right shoulder arthroscopy on July 16, 2013. He indicated that appellant’s pain bothered her
with casing and delivering mail and increased with repetitive motion. On August 8, 2013
Dr. Schneider indicated that at the time of surgery she had a high-grade partial thickness tear of
the biceps tendon and opined that this was directly and causally related to the work she had done
in her role as a rural carrier. On August 9, 2013 he diagnosed right shoulder partial tear of
longhead of biceps and labral tear. Dr. Schneider checked a box “yes” indicating that appellant’s
condition was caused or aggravated by an employment activity. Although the “yes” check mark
indicates support for causal relationship, his report is insufficient to establish a causal
relationship.8 The Board has held that when a physician’s opinion on causal relationship consists
only of a check mark on a form, without more by way of medical rationale, the opinion is of
diminished probative value.9 Although, Dr. Schneider indicated with a check mark “yes” that
appellant’s condition was caused or aggravated by her employment, he failed to provide a
sufficient medical rationale explaining the relationship between her right shoulder condition and
the implicated employment factors.10 The Board has held that the mere fact that her symptoms
arise during a period of employment or produce symptoms revelatory of an underlying condition
does not establish a causal relationship between her condition and her employment factors.11
Dr. Schneider failed to provide a rationalized opinion explaining how factors of appellant’s
federal employment, such as casing, pulling, loading, marking and sorting mail and opening and
6

See supra note 4.

7

See A.C., Docket No. 08-1453 (issued November 18, 2008); Donald W. Wenzel, 56 ECAB 390 (2005); Leslie C.
Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).
8

See Lucrecia Nielsen, 42 ECAB 583 (1991); Lillian Jones, 34 ECAB 379 (1982) (an opinion on causal
relationship which consists only of a physician checking yes to a medical form report question on whether the
claimant’s disability was related to the history given is of little probative value).
9

See Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001).

10

See Thomas L. Hogan, 47 ECAB 323, 328-29 (1996).

11

See Richard B. Cissel, 32 ECAB 1910, 1917 (1981); William Nimitz, Jr., 30 ECAB 567, 570 (1979).

4

closing mailbox doors, caused or aggravated her right shoulder condition. He noted that her
condition occurred while she was at work, but such generalized statements do not establish
causal relationship because they merely repeat her allegations and are unsupported by adequate
medical rationale explaining how her physical activity at work actually caused or aggravated the
diagnosed conditions.12 Lacking thorough medical rationale on the issue of causal relationship,
the Board finds that Dr. Schneider’s reports are insufficient to establish that appellant sustained
an employment-related injury.
On April 17, 2013 Dr. Pomeranz indicated that appellant had shoulder pain and
tenderness for three to four months and diagnosed supraspinatus tendinopathy, anterior rotator
interval inflammation and subscapularis tendinosis based upon his review of an MRI scan of the
right shoulder that same day. On July 13, 2013 Dr. Kalfas conducted a preoperation examination
for a right shoulder arthroscopy. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer
any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the
issue of causal relationship.13 As such, the Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of
proof with the submission of these reports.
As appellant has not submitted any rationalized medical evidence to support her
allegation that she sustained an injury causally related to the indicated employment factors, she
failed to meet her burden of proof to establish a claim.
On appeal, counsel contends that OWCP improperly weighed the evidence of record and
argues that appellant submitted strong medical evidence showing causation. Based on the
findings and reasons stated above, the Board finds his arguments are not substantiated.
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 she
sustained a right shoulder condition in the performance of duty causally related to factors of her
federal employment.

12

See K.W., Docket No. 10-98 (issued September 10, 2010).

13

See C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009).

5

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 6, 2013 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: August 15, 2014
Washington, DC

Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Acting Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

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

6


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
C.W., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, VICKERY STATION,
Dallas, TX, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Docket No. 21-1204
Issued: March 11, 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 August 3, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 29, 2021 merit decision
and a July 27, 2021 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs
(OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R.
§§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case. 2
ISSUES
The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a medical
condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment; and (2) whether

1
2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

The Board notes that, following the July 27, 2021 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to the Board.
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.

OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of his claim, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
FACTUAL HISTORY
On January 28, 2021 appellant, then a 69-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational disease
claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed bilateral wrist pain due to factors of his federal
employment. He noted that an attached statement explained how his employment factors caused
his condition, however, no such statement was contained in the record. Appellant noted that he
first became aware of his claimed injury on December 16, 2021 and realized its relation to his
federal employment on January 26, 2021.3 On the reverse side of the claim form, his supervisor,
M.J., indicated that appellant’s work was modified so that he did not have to lift items over 10
pounds and that he was attending physical therapy daily. The employing establishment challenged
appellant’s claim because appellant did not submit any factual or medical documentation.
In a development letter dated February 5, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the
deficiencies of his claim. It advised him of the type of additional factual and medical evidence
needed and provided a questionnaire for his completion. In a separate development letter of even
date, OWCP requested additional information from the employing establishment, including
comments from a knowledgeable supervisor and an explanation of appellant’s work activities. It
afforded both parties 30 days to respond.
A January 26, 2021 report from Dr. Juan Zamora, a Board-certified physician specializing
in family medicine, related appellant’s history of injury. Appellant awoke on December 16, 2020
with sharp pain in his left wrist and continued to experience frequent pain and discomfort
extending into his middle fingers. A similar pattern of pain started in his right wrist on
December 30, 2020. Appellant also began to experience right elbow pain on January 4, 2021.
Pain in each of these areas increased with activity. Dr. Zamora opined that appellant’s condition
was work related and recommended diagnostic testing. He diagnosed unspecified sprains of the
right elbow and both wrists.
On February 9, 2021 appellant responded to OWCP’s development questionnaire, noting
that he worked limited duty and retired from the employing establishment on February 1, 2021.
He indicated that his responses to OWCP’s remaining questions were contained in an attached
statement, however, no such statement is found in the record.
Appellant underwent bilateral wrist x-rays and a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan
on February 10, 2021. The x-ray of his left wrist revealed severe triscaphe and mild
trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis and a one millimeter ulnar positive variance indicating possible
ulnar impaction syndrome or triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) tears. The x-ray of
appellant’s right wrist revealed severe triscaphe and mild radiocarpal and trapeziometacarpal
osteoarthritis. The MRI scan of his left wrist demonstrated tricompartmental wrist effusions,
chondromalacia within the lunate and distal ulna, which could relate to ulnar impaction syndrome
and/or osteoarthritis, severe triscaphe and mild-to-moderate trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis,
3

A January 20, 2021 notice of separation indicated that appellant retired from the employing establishment on
January 31, 2021.

2

increased signal within the TFCC compatible with either a TFCC tear or TFCC degeneration, and
mild generalized extensor tenosynovitis. The MRI scan of appellant’s right wrist demonstrated
mild generalized extensor tenosynovitis with grade 1 strain of the extensor carpi ulnaris tendon,
tricompartmental wrist effusions, severe triscaphe and mild trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis, and
increased signal within the TFCC indicative of either a TFCC tear or TFCC degeneration .
In a February 23, 2021 report, Dr. Zamora reviewed the February 10, 2021 x-ray and MRI
scans and diagnosed chondromalacia, osteoarthritis, and TFCC degeneration, possibly with tears.
He opined that appellant’s conditions were due to the natural wear and tear of the body but were
aggravated by his 42 years of work for the employing establishment. Dr. Zamora advised appellant
to begin a regimen of physical rehabilitation.
By decision dated March 29, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim,
finding that the medical evidence submitted was insufficient to establish causal relationship
between his diagnosed conditions and the accepted factors of his federal employment.
Appellant subsequently submitted an undated statement responding to OWCP’s initial
development questionnaire. He described his employment activities, including daily sorting and
delivering of mail and parcels weighing up to 70 pounds and carrying up to 35 pounds of letters,
flats, and small parcels in a satchel carried on left shoulder such that weight was almost entirely
on his left shoulder and arm. Appellant noted that he had been under lifting restrictions at work
since July 2020 due to a left arm injury. He compensated for his left arm injury by doing more
work with his right arm. Appellant’s left wrist and hand pain began during the night on
December 16, 2020, and he reported it to his station manager, D.D, the next day. Similar pain
began in his right wrist on December 30, 2020 and in his right arm and elbow on January 4, 2021.
Appellant experienced greater pain and discomfort during periods of activity. He reported this
history to his manager, M.J., on January 13 and 15, 2020. Appellant’s activities outside of work
consisted mainly of listening to music and watching movies. He believed that his symptoms were
indicative of repetitive motion injuries due to the nature of his work for the employing
establishment.
OWCP received February 23, 2021 report from Dr. Zamora in which he again reviewed
the February 10, 2021 x-rays and MRI scans and diagnosed chondromalacia, osteoarthritis, and
TFCC degeneration, possibly with tears. Dr. Zamora opined that appellant’s conditions were due
to the natural wear and tear of the body but were aggravated by his 42 years of work at the
employing establishment. Specifically, he explained that appellant’s work duties, including
carrying and handling heavy loads, sorting and casing mail, repetitively twisting at the wrist to
open mailboxes, and repetitively locking and unlocking his work vehicle throughout the day,
aggravated his conditions. Dr. Zamora advised that appellant begin a regimen of physical
rehabilitation.
On April 28, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. In support of his request, he
submitted an April 27, 2021 statement, in which he contended that his more than 42 years of
service to the employing establishment, including a great deal of overtime, directly contributed to
his diagnosed conditions. Appellant noted that, as a result of a previously accepted left arm injury,
assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx014, he had been restricted to eight hours of work per day during
the latter half of 2020. Finally, he argued that the medical documentation proved causal

3

relationship between his diagnosed medical conditions and the accepted factors of his federal
employment.
By decision dated July 27, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of
the merits of his claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1
An employee seeking benefits under FECA 4 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, 5 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. 6 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. 7
To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational
disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (1) a factual statement identifying
employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence o f the
disease or condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or
condition for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the
diagnosed condition is causally related to the identified employment factors. 8
Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opin ion
evidence to resolve the issue. 9 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship
between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factor(s) must be based on a
complete factual and medical background. 10 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be
expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical

4

Supra note 1.

5

S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB
153 (1989).
6

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

K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014);
Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
8

R.G., Docket No. 19-0233 (issued July 16, 2019). See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Ruby I.
Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).
9

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

10

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

4

rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s
specific employment factor(s). 11
ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1
The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a medical
condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.
In his January 26, 2021 report, Dr. Zamora diagnosed unspecified sprains of the right
elbow and both wrists and opined that appellant’s condition was work related. Similarly, in a
February 23, 2021 report, he diagnosed chondromalacia, osteoarthritis, and TFCC degeneration,
possibly with tears, and opined that appellant’s conditions were due to the natural wear and tear of
the body, but were aggravated by appellant’s 42 years of work for the employing establishment.
While he provided an affirmative opinion suggestive of causal relationship, Dr. Zamora did not
offer medical rationale sufficient to explain why he believes appellant’s employment duties could
have resulted in or contributed to his diagnosed conditions. Without identifying specific
employment duties or explaining how they caused or aggravated app ellant’s conditions,
Dr. Zamora’s letter is of limited probative value and is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of
proof.12
In a separate February 23, 2021 report, Dr. Zamora repeated the above diagnoses and again
opined that appellant’s conditions were due to the natural wear and tear of the body , but were
aggravated by appellant’s 42 years of work for the employing establishment. Specifically, he
explained that appellant’s work duties, including carrying and handling heavy loads, sortin g and
casing mail, repetitively twisting at the wrist to open mailboxes, and repetitively locking and
unlocking his work vehicle throughout the day, aggravated his conditions. However, Dr. Zamora
did not explain how any of these described employment activities caused appellant’s diagnosed
chondromalacia, osteoarthritis, and TFCC degeneration. To be of probative medical value, a
medical opinion must explain how, physiologically, the movements involved in the employment
activities caused or contributed to the diagnosed conditions. 13 As such, Dr. Zamora’s report is
insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.
The remaining medical evidence consisted of bilateral x-ray and MRI scans of appellant’s
wrists. The Board has held, however, that diagnostic testing reports, standing alone, lack probative
value on the issue of causal relationship as they do not address the relationship between the
accepted employment factors and a diagnosed condition. 14 For this reason, this evidence is also
insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

11

Id.; Victor J. Woodhams, supra note 8.

12

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

13

A.W., Docket No. 19-0327 (issued July 19, 2019); M.D., Docket No. 18-0195 (issued September 13, 2018);
Jimmie H. Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001).
14

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

5

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence sufficient to establish a
medical condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment, the Board
finds that he has not met his burden of proof. 15
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.
LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2
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. 16
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.17
A request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of
OWCP decision for which review is sought. 18 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens and
reviews the case on its merits. 19 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. 20

15

See T.J., Docket No. 19-1339 (issued March 4, 2020); F.D., Docket No. 19-0932 (issued October 3, 2019); D.N.,
Docket No. 19-0070 (issued May 10, 2019); R.B., Docket No. 18-1327 (issued December 31, 2018).
16

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019); see also V.P., Docket No. 171287 (issued October 10, 2017); D.L., Docket No. 09-1549 (issued February 23, 2010); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).
17

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see L.D., id; see also L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 (issued March 3, 2010); C.N., Docket
No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008).
18

Id. at § 10.607(a). The one-year period begins on the next day after the date of the original contested decision.
For merit decisions issued on or after August 29, 2011, a request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP
within one year of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims,
Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 (September 2020). 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.
19

Id. at § 10.608(a); see also A.F., Docket No. 19-1832 (issued July 21, 2020); M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

20

Id. at § 10.608(b); J.B., Docket No. 20-0145 (issued September 8, 2020); Y.K., Docket No. 18-1167 (issued
April 2, 2020); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued March 18, 2010).

6

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2
The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the
merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
Appellant has not alleged or demonstrated that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted
a specific point of law. Moreover, appellant has not advanced a relevant legal argument not
previously considered. Consequently, he is not entitled to a review of the merits of his claim based
on the first and second above-noted requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).21
Appellant also did not submit relevant and pertinent new evidence in support of his
reconsideration request. The underlying issue on reconsideration is whether appellant has met his
burden of proof to establish a medical condition causally related to the accepted factors of his
federal employment. This is a medical issue which is addressed by relevant medical evidence not
previously considered. 22
With his request for reconsideration, appellant submitted an undated response to OWCP’s
initial development questionnaire, a February 23, 2021 medical report from Dr. Zamora, and an
April 27, 2021 statement contending that his conditions were causally related to the accepted
factors of his federal employment. The undated questionnaire response and the April 27, 2021
statement do not constitute relevant and pertinent new evidence as they are not medical evidence.
Further, Dr. Zamora’s separate February 23, 2021 medical report substantially replicates a
previously considered report of even date. The only addition in the later-submitted report was a
list of employment activities that he believed aggravated appellant’s medical conditions.
Dr. Zamora’s did not, however, offer an explanation of the causal relationship between those
activities and the diagnosed conditions. The Board has held that the submission of evidence that
does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case. 23
As such, appellant is not entitled to further review of the merits of his claim based on the third
above-noted requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).24
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. 25
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a medical
condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment. The Board further
21

C.B., Docket No. 18-1108 (issued January 22, 2019).

22

Y.L., Docket No. 20-1025 (issued November 25, 2020).

23

See T.T., Docket No. 19-0319 (issued October 26, 2020); Alan G. Williams, 52 ECAB 180 (2000); Jacqueline M.
Nixon-Steward, 52 ECB 140 (2000); Edward Matthew Diekemper; 31 ECAB 224, 225 (1979).
24

Supra note 16.

25

J.B., supra note 20; D.G., Docket No. 19-1348 (issued December 2, 2019).

7

finds that OWCP properly denied his request for reconsideration of the merits of his claim pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 29 and July 27, 2021 decisions of the
Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 26
Issued: March 11, 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

26

Upon return of the case record, OWCP may consider administratively combining the current claim file with
OWCP File No. xxxxxx014.

8


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
R.P., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Columbus, OH, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Docket No. 14-413
Issued: July 8, 2014

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Acting Chief Judge
COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On December 10, 20131 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 13, 2013 merit
decision and two nonmerit decisions dated September 9 and November 13, 2013 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.3

1

Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of the last OWCP
decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. One hundred and eighty
days from June 13, 2013, the date of OWCP’s decision, was December 10, 2013. Since using December 17, 2013,
the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Board, would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the
postmark is considered the date of filing. The date of the U.S. Postal Service postmark is December 10, 2013, which
renders the appeal timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1).
2
3

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

The Board notes that, following the issuance of the November 13, 2013 OWCP decision and on appeal,
appellant submitted new evidence. The Board is precluded from reviewing evidence which was not before OWCP
at the time it issued its final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1).

ISSUES
The issues are: (1) whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish that his
bilateral kidney condition was causally related to a July 18, 2012 employment incident, as
alleged; and (2) whether OWCP properly refused to reopen appellant’s case for further
reconsideration of the merits pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) in its September 9 and
November 13, 2013 decisions.
On appeal, appellant contends that he was in the performance of duty as a letter carrier on
July 18, 2012 and the unusually high temperature of 104 degrees that day is causally related to
his injury.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On August 7, 2012 appellant, then a 52-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury
claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he sustained an acute renal failure of the kidneys on July 17,
2012 as a result of inclement weather conditions which caused him to pass out at the wheel while
he was in the performance of duty.
In a July 18, 2012 report, Dr. Maisha Mosley, an emergency room attending physician,
diagnosed rhabdomyolysis, hypotension and syncope. She indicated that appellant had a history
of hypertension and rhabdomyolysis and presented to the emergency department for syncope.
Dr. Mosley stated that appellant was driving a postal truck during his work shift and was making
a turn when his vision got bright and he wrecked the truck, hitting a curb and sign. Appellant
reported that he had fainted. Although he was able to drive back to the station, he fell to his
knees when he exited the truck, but denied syncope. Appellant’s airbag did not deploy. He had
nausea but had not vomited. Appellant was told that his condition could be secondary to
delivering mail in the heat as his cramps had been more often with the past hot summer days. He
reported syncope while in the military when he was younger.
In an August 13, 2012 letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of his claim
and afforded him 30 days to submit additional evidence and respond to its inquiries.
Appellant submitted July 18, 2012 hospital records from Mount Carmel East Hospital
and a July 30, 2012 narrative statement reiterating that he passed out at the wheel in the
performance of duty on July 18, 2012. He stated that the only thing he remembered was
somehow being back at the station parking lot. Appellant felt headaches, confusion, nausea, and
was totally unaware of his surroundings.
In a July 26, 2012 report, Dr. Patricia Hollingsworth, a Board-certified family
practitioner, indicated that appellant had been under her care for the period July 19 to 29, 2012
due to medical conditions involving his kidneys. She opined that he was unable to perform his
duties during his period of treatment and was able to return to work on July 30, 2012.
By decision dated September 14, 2012, OWCP denied the claim on the basis that the
evidence failed to establish fact of injury.

2

On October 11, 2012 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted a July 21, 2012
report from Dr. James Soldano, a Board-certified family practitioner, who diagnosed syncope
related to dehydration, acute renal insufficiency and rhabdomyolysis. Dr. Soldano indicated that
appellant had high blood pressure and was out in the heat with temperatures around 103 to 104
degrees. Appellant had noticed a decreased urine output, dark urine, muscle pains and tried to
get his hydration back in control. He got into his truck and had an accident due to a syncopal
episode. Dr. Soldano indicated that appellant had a very similar episode in the past in hot
weather.
In an undated report, Dr. Fareed Shaikh, a physician Board-certified in cardiovascular
disease, internal medicine and interventional cardiology, diagnosed hypertension. He indicated
that appellant’s blood pressure was within normal limits in the office. Dr. Shaikh opined that
appellant’s “[s]yncopal episodes were probably related to hypotension related to Diovan” and
advised him to remain off of Diovan.
In a September 11, 2012 report, Dr. Hollingsworth indicated that appellant had an
echocardiogram and various other noncardiac tests to determine that his symptoms from the
July 2012 syncopal episode were related primarily to dehydration and acute renal insufficiency.
On November 5, 2012 he diagnosed syncope, renal failure, dehydration and elevated creatine
phosphokinase (CPK) and placed work restrictions on appellant, advising that he must not work
in extreme heat or humidity and must stay hydrated at all times.
By decision dated January 15, 2013, OWCP found that appellant had established fact of
injury, but denied the claim on the basis that the medical evidence submitted was not sufficient
to establish a causal relationship between his bilateral kidney condition and the July 18, 2012
employment incident.
On January 15, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted diagnostic
reports dated July 20 and 21, 2012 from Mount Carmel East Hospital and a July 20, 2012
transthoracic echocardiography report.
In a March 4, 2013 report, Dr. Hollingsworth indicated that the employment incident that
occurred on July 18, 2012 was due to a syncopal episode due to dehydration, acute renal failure
and rhabdomyolysis. She indicated that appellant was treated at Mount Carmel East Hospital for
all of these diagnoses. Dr. Hollingsworth opined that “[t]he extremely hot weather (103 [to] 104
[degrees]) was felt to be a significant precipitating/contributing factor in what happened to
[appellant] medically.”
By decision dated June 13, 2013, OWCP denied modification of its January 15, 2013
decision.
On August 27, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration.
By decision dated September 9, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s request for
reconsideration of the merits finding that he had not submitted pertinent new and relevant
evidence and had not shown that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a point of law not
previously considered by OWCP.

3

On November 11, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration and resubmitted the March 4,
2013 report from Dr. Hollingsworth.
By decision dated November 13, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s request for
reconsideration without a review of the merits.
LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1
An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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 injury5 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.6
To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the
performance of duty, it must first be determined whether a “fact of injury” has been established.
A fact of injury determination is based on two elements. First, the employee must submit
sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at
the time, place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit sufficient
evidence, generally only in the form of medical evidence, to establish that the employment
incident caused a personal injury. An employee may establish that the employment incident
occurred as alleged but fail to show that his or her condition relates to the employment incident.7
Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence generally required to
establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 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 factors
identified by the employee.8
ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1
OWCP has accepted that the employment incident of July 18, 2012 occurred at the time,
place and in the manner alleged. The issue is whether appellant’s bilateral kidney condition
4

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

5

OWCP regulations define a traumatic injury as a condition of the body caused by a specific event or incident, or
series of events or incidents, within a single workday or shift. Such condition must be caused by external force,
including stress or strain, which is identifiable as to time and place of occurrence and member or function of the
body affected. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee).
6

See T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). See also Steven S. Saleh, 55 ECAB 169 (2003); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB
1143 (1989).
7

Id. See Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404 (1997); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8

Id. See Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001).

4

resulted from the July 18, 2012 employment incident. The Board finds that appellant did not
meet his burden of proof to establish a causal relationship between the condition for which
compensation is claimed and the employment incident.
In her reports, Dr. Hollingsworth diagnosed syncope, renal failure, dehydration and
elevated CPK. On September 11, 2012 she indicated that appellant had an echocardiogram and
various other noncardiac tests to determine that his symptoms from the July 2012 syncopal
episode were related primarily to dehydration and acute renal insufficiency. On March 4, 2013
Dr. Hollingsworth reiterated that the employment incident that occurred on July 18, 2012 was
due to a syncopal episode due to dehydration, acute renal failure and rhabdomyolysis. She
opined that “[t]he extremely hot weather (103 [to] 104 [degrees]) was felt to be a significant
precipitating/contributing factor in what happened to [appellant] medically.” Dr. Hollingsworth
failed to provide a rationalized opinion explaining how factors of his employment, such as
driving in hot weather, caused or aggravated his bilateral kidney condition. Although she noted
that appellant’s condition occurred while he was at work, but such generalized statements do not
establish causal relationship because they merely repeat his allegations and are unsupported by
adequate medical rationale explaining how his physical activity at work actually caused or
aggravated the diagnosed conditions.9
Thus, the Board finds that the reports from
Dr. Hollingsworth are insufficient to establish that he sustained an employment-related injury.
On July 21, 2012 Dr. Soldano diagnosed syncope related to dehydration, acute renal
insufficiency and rhabdomyolysis. He indicated that appellant had high blood pressure and was
out in the heat with temperatures around 103 to 104 degrees, noting that appellant had a very
similar episode in the past in hot weather. Dr. Soldano did not provide sufficient medical
rationale explaining how appellant’s conditions were caused or aggravated by working in hot
weather on July 18, 2012. Thus, the Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof
to establish a causal relationship between his bilateral kidney conditions and the July 18, 2012
employment incident.
In his report, Dr. Shaikh diagnosed hypertension and opined that appellant’s “[s]yncopal
episodes were probably related to hypotension related to Diovan” and advised him to remain off
of Diovan. He did not provide medical rationale explaining how appellant’s condition was
caused or aggravated by the July 18, 2012 employment incident.
In her July 18, 2012 report, Dr. Mosley diagnosed rhabdomyolysis, hypotension and
syncope. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding the
cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal
relationship.10
The July 20 and 21, 2012 diagnostic reports from Mount Carmel East Hospital and the
July 20, 2012 transthoracic echocardiography report are diagnostic in nature and therefore do not
address causal relationship. As such, the Board finds that they are insufficient to establish
appellant’s claim.
9

See K.W., Docket No. 10-98 (issued September 10, 2010).

10

See C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009).

5

Thus the evidence submitted by appellant is devoid of rationalized medical evidence to
support his allegation that he sustained an injury causally related to a July 18, 2012 employment
incident, he has failed to meet his burden of proof to establish a claim for compensation.
On appeal, appellant contends that he was in the performance of duty as a letter carrier on
July 18, 2012 and the unusually high temperature of 104 degrees that caused his injury. Based
on the Board’s findings for the reasons stated above, although appellant was in the performance
of duty at the time of the incident, the medical evidence did not establish that the condition was
caused by work factors.
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.
LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2
Section 8128(a) of FECA does not entitle a claimant to a review of an OWCP decision as
a matter of right; it vests OWCP with discretionary authority to determine whether it will review
an award for or against compensation.11 OWCP, through regulations, has imposed limitations on
the exercise of its discretionary authority under section 8128(a).12
To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128(a) of FECA,
OWCP regulations provide that the evidence or argument submitted by a claimant must:
(1) show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advance a
relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitute relevant and
pertinent new evidence not previously considered by OWCP.13 To be entitled to a merit review
of an OWCP decision denying or terminating a benefit, a claimant also must file his or her
application for review within one year of the date of that decision.14 When a claimant fails to
meet one of the above standards, OWCP will deny the application for reconsideration without
reopening the case for review on the merits.15
The Board has held that the submission of evidence or argument which repeats or
duplicates evidence or argument already in the case record16 and the submission of evidence or

11

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. Under section 8128 of FECA, the Secretary of Labor may review an award for or
against payment of compensation at any time on his own motion or on application. 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
12

See Annette Louise, 54 ECAB 783, 789-90 (2003).

13

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). See A.L., Docket No. 08-1730 (issued March 16, 2009).

14

Id. at § 10.607(a).

15

Id. at § 10.608(b).

16

See A.L., supra note 13. See also Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984).

6

argument which does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for
reopening a case.17
ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2
In this case, there are two nonmerit decisions before the Board: the September 9, 2013
decision, which reviewed the August 27, 2013 reconsideration request; and the November 13,
2013 decision, which reviewed the November 11, 2013 reconsideration request and the
accompanying evidence.
With respect to the August 27, 2013 reconsideration request, appellant did not submit any
evidence which shows that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law, or
advances a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. Moreover, he did not
submit any pertinent new and relevant evidence. As he did not meet any of the necessary
requirements, he is not entitled to further merit review.
In support of his November 11, 2013 reconsideration request, appellant resubmitted a
March 4, 2013 report from Dr. Hollingsworth. The Board finds that the submission of this report
did not require reopening appellant’s case for merit review because appellant had submitted the
same report from Dr. Hollingsworth, which was previously reviewed by OWCP in a decision
dated June 13, 2013. As the report repeats evidence already in the case record, it is duplicative
and does not constitute relevant and pertinent new evidence. Therefore, appellant has not
established a basis for reopening his case and the Board finds that OWCP properly denied merit
review.18
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish that his
bilateral kidney condition is causally related to a July 18, 2012 employment incident, as alleged.
The Board further finds that OWCP properly refused to reopen appellant’s case for further
reconsideration of the merits pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) in its September 9 and
November 13, 2013 decisions.

17

Id. See also Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224, 225 (1979).

18

See D.K., 59 ECAB 141 (2007).

7

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decisions of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs dated November 13, September 9 and June 13, 2013 are affirmed.
Issued: July 8, 2014
Washington, DC

Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Acting Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

8


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
A.A., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL
CENTER, Butler, PA, Employer
__________________________________________
Appearances:
Douglas Sughrue, Esq., for the appellant
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Docket No. 14-1081
Issued: October 1, 2014

Case Submitted on the Record

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

On April 9, 2014 appellant, through her attorney, filed a timely appeal from an
October 11, 2013 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The
Board assigned Docket No. 14-1081.
In its October 11, 2013 decision, OWCP refused to reopen appellant’s case for further
review of the merits of her claim on the grounds that her request for reconsideration was
untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. It stated that the request for
reconsideration of the August 20, 2012 OWCP decision denying her occupational exposure
claim was untimely as it was received on August 20, 2013 and not by August 19, 2013.
The Board finds that OWCP improperly determined in this case that appellant failed to file
a timely request for reconsideration. In computing the time for requesting reconsideration, the date
of the event from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included when
computing the time period. The last day of the period so computed shall be included unless it is a
Saturday, a Sunday or a legal holiday.1 The time for requesting reconsideration of OWCP’s

1

Angel M. Lebron, Jr., 51 ECAB 488 (2000); John B. Montoya, 43, ECAB 1148 (1992).

August 20, 2012 decision began to run on August 21, 2012 and thus would have expired on
August 20, 2013.
Pursuant to OWCP regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a) an application for reconsideration
must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of the OWCP decision for which review is
sought.
As appellant’s request for reconsideration was received on that date, August 20, 2013, it
was timely. The case will be remanded to OWCP for application of the standard for reviewing
timely requests for reconsideration.
Accordingly, the Board, having duly considered the matter, concludes that, in its
October 11, 2013 decision, OWCP improperly determined that appellant filed an untimely
request for reconsideration of its August 20, 2012 decision. The October 11, 2013 decision of
OWCP must be set aside and the case remanded to OWCP to further review of appellant’s
reconsideration request under the standards for timely reconsideration requests, to be followed
by the issuance of an appropriate decision following any necessary further development in
accordance with its regulations.2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 11, 2013 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case remanded to OWCP for further
proceedings consistent with this order of the Board.
Issued: October 1, 2014
Washington, DC

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

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
2

See Debra McDavid, 57 ECAB 149 (2005).

2


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
P.T., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Bronx, NY, Employer
__________________________________________
Appearances:
Stephen Larkin, for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Docket No. 16-0700
Issued: September 26, 2017

Case Submitted on the Record

ORDER REMANDING CASE
Before:
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On January 20, 2016 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from a
February 5, 2016 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).
The Clerk of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 16-1766.
The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that the case is not in posture for
decision and must be remanded to OWCP. In the case of William A. Couch,2 the Board held that
when adjudicating a claim, OWCP is obligated to consider all evidence properly submitted by a
claimant and received by OWCP before the final decision is issued. In this case, appellant filed a
traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she injured her right shoulder
when an elevator jerked causing postal containers to hit her shoulder. In an October 1, 2014
decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was
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

41 ECAB 548 (1990).

insufficient to establish a work injury. On October 7, 2014 appellant requested a telephonic
hearing, held before an OWCP hearing representative on April 15, 2015. On June 3, 2015 the
hearing representative vacated the October 1, 2014 decision and remanded the claim for further
medical development.3 On October 1, 2015 OWCP accepted the claim for contusion of the right
shoulder and sequela based on the second opinion of referral physician, Dr. Mark Kramer, a
Board-certified orthopedic surgeon.4
On October 21, 2015 appellant submitted Form CA-7 claims for wage-loss compensation
for the periods September 29 to October 17, 2014 and November 4, 2014 to October 16, 2015.
By decision dated January 5, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation for the
period from November 4, 2014 to October 16, 2015.5 By letter dated January 5, 2016, it
informed appellant of the type of evidence needed to support her claim for disability during the
period September 29 to October 17, 2014. In a January 22, 2016 memorandum, OWCP
requested that the case file be updated with an updated statement of accepted facts and an
updated opinion from Dr. Kramer with regard to whether appellant could return to her duties as a
mail handler and whether the accepted condition had resolved. On January 29, 2016 it received a
supplemental opinion of the same date by Dr. Kramer in which he opined that appellant could
return to her duties as a mail handler without restrictions and clarified an error made in his
September 16, 2015 report. By decision dated February 5, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s
claim for compensation for the period September 29 to October 17, 2014. It did not note receipt
or consideration of the January 29, 2016 supplemental opinion of Dr. Kramer.

3

On November 29, 2015 appellant, through her representative, sought an appeal from the June 3, 2015 decision
of OWCP. However, on March 10, 2016 the Board issued an order dismissing appeal as the matter was in an
interlocutory posture. Order Dismissing Appeal, Docket No. 16-0251 (issued March 10, 2016).
4

The information provided did not include details of appellant’s duties as a mail handler.

5

Docket No. 16-0491 will be issued under a separate decision.

2

The Board finds that, as OWCP did not review Dr. Kramer’s January 29, 2016
supplemental opinion, the case will be remanded to OWCP to enable it to properly consider all
of the evidence submitted at the time of the February 5, 2016 decision. Following such further
development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision on appellant’s
traumatic injury claim.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 5, 2016 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded to OWCP for further
proceedings consistent with this order of the Board.
Issued: September 26, 2017
Washington, DC

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

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

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

3


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
A.J., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BURLINGTON POST
OFFICE, Burlington, NC, Employer
__________________________________________
Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Docket No. 21-0944
Issued: March 23, 2022

Case Submitted on the Record

ORDER REMANDING CASE
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On June 1, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 13, 2021 nonmerit decision
of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards
docketed the appeal as 21-0944.
On February 4, 2016 appellant, then a 54-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury
claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she sustained injuries on January 20, 2016 when she fell down
steps while delivering mail. OWCP accepted the claim for contusion of right hip, contusion of left
hip, left side lumbago with sciatica, left hip trochanteric bursitis, and lumbar intervertebral disc
displacement. It authorized lumbar spinal decompression surgery, which occurred on
December 15, 2016. OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation intermittently on the
supplemental rolls and on the periodic rolls from May 28, 2016 until January 4, 2019.
In a report dated June 17, 2019, Dr. Mark Dumonski, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon,
diagnosed left sacroiliac joint dysfunction and status post L3-4 decompression and fusion. He
opined that appellant had 30 percent permanent impairment of her back, which was based upon 25
percent permanent impairment for L3-4 fusion and 5 percent permanent impairment of the left
sacroiliac joint.
On September 3, 2019 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a schedule
award.

On September 18, 2019 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Chason S. Hayes, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, for a permanent impairment rating. In a report dated October 11,
2019, Dr. Hayes diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy. He found appellant was at maximum medical
improvement (MMI). Using the sixth edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the
Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides), he found that appellant had an eight
percent permanent impairment of the lumbar spine. In an addendum dated November 5, 2019,
Dr. Hayes noted that he had been requested to recalculate appellant’s permanent impairment based
upon her peripheral nerve impairment. He concluded that under this method, as appellant had no
motor or sensory deficits she had zero percent permanent impairment.
In a report dated December 10, 2019, Dr. Arthur Harris, a Board-certified orthopedic
surgeon serving as the district medical adviser (DMA), noted his disagreement with Dr. Hayes’
October 11, 2019 impairment rating for lumbar spine impairment as this permanent impairment
rating was not based on The Guides Newsletter Rating Spinal Nerve Extremity Impairment Using
the Sixth Edition (July/August 2009) (The Guides Newsletter) for rating spinal nerve impairments.
He explained that appellant did not have any neurologic deficit causing sensory or motor loss,
therefore she had a Class 0 placement using Table 2 of The Guides Newsletter resulting in zero
percent lower extremity permanent impairment, due to her lumbar radiculopathy.
By decision dated December 30, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule
award as the medical evidence of record was insufficient to support an impairment to a member or
function of the body.
In a report dated November 20, 2020, Dr. Dumonski diagnosed left sacroiliac joint
dysfunction. He explained that appellant’s 30 percent permanent impairment rating was based
upon her sacroiliac joint dysfunction, which caused pain to extend into her left leg.
On January 5, 2021 OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration of the
December 30, 2019 decision.
By decision dated January 13, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration,
finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.
The Board, having duly considered the matter, finds that this case is not in posture for
decision.
The Board finds that OWCP did not make findings regarding the evidence appellant
submitted in support of the reconsideration request. 1 OWCP summarily denied appellant’s request
for reconsideration without complying with the review requirement of FECA a nd its implementing
regulations.2 As noted, section 8124(a) of FECA provides that OWCP shall determine and make
1
See R.C., Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 20-1671 (issued May 6, 2021); J.K., Order Remanding Case,
Docket No. 20-0556 (issued August 13, 2020); C.D., Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 20-0450 (issued August 13,
2020); T.B., Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 20-0426 (issued July 27, 2020).
2

See M.G., Docket No. 21-0893 (issued December 27, 2021); Order Remanding Case, W.D., Docket No. 20-0859
(issued November 20, 2020); Order Remanding Case, C.G., Docket No. 20-0051 (issued June 29, 2020); Order
Remanding Case, T.P., Docket No. 19-1533 (issued April 30, 2020); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b).

2

a finding of fact and make an award for or against payment of compensation. 3 Its regulations at
20 C.F.R. § 10.126 provide that the decision of the Director of OWCP shall contain findings and
facts and a statement of reasons. 4 As well, OWCP’s procedures provide that the reasoning behind
OWCP’s evaluation should be clear enough for the reader to understand the precise defect of the
claim and the kind of evidence which would overcome it.5
In the January 13, 2021decision, OWCP did not reference or consider the November 20,
2020 medical report of Dr. Dumonski that appellant submitted in support of her request for
reconsideration. It failed to analyze this evidence. OWCP summarily denied appellant’s request
for reconsideration without complying with the review requirements of FECA and its
implementing regulations. 6 Section 8124(a) of FECA provides that OWCP shall determine and
make a finding of fact and make an award for or against payment of compensation. 7 Its regulations
at 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 provide that the decision of the Director of OWCP shall contain findings of
fact and a statement of reasons. 8 As well, OWCP’s procedures provide that the reasoning behind
OWCP’s evaluation should be clear enough for the reader to understand the precise defect of the
claim and the kind of evidence which would overcome it. 9
The Board will therefore set aside OWCP’s January 13, 2021 decision and remand the case
for an appropriate decision on appellant’s reconsideration request, which considers the evidence
submitted. Accordingly,

3

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

5

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5 (February 2013) (all
decisions should contain findings of fact sufficient to identify the benefit being denied and the reason for the
disallowance).
6

See C.G., supra note 2; T.P., supra note 2; see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b).

7

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).

8

20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

9

Supra note 5.

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 13, 2021 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this order of the Board.
Issued: March 23, 2022
Washington, DC

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

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

4


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
V.G., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, OAK PARK POST
OFFICE, Oak Park, IL, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Docket No. 08-77
Issued: February 23, 2009

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge
JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On September 11, 2007 appellant filed a timely appeal from the April 24, 2007 merit
decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, which denied her claim for
consequential injury and medical treatment. 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 established that she sustained a right knee injury that
required surgery as a consequence of her accepted November 20, 2001 employment-related left
knee injuries.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On November 20, 2001 appellant, then a 43-year-old distribution clerk, sustained injury
to her left knee after being struck by an all-purpose container that was being pushed by a
coworker. By letter dated April 4, 2002, the Office accepted the claim for a strain and meniscus
tear of the left knee.

In an undated letter received by the Office on December 23, 2004, appellant requested
that it authorize medical treatment for her right knee. She stated that, following injury, her right
knee became aggravated by carrying her weight for a long period of time. Appellant was
diagnosed with having a complex tear in the right knee based on a magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) scan. On January 20, 2005 the Office authorized appellant to undergo bilateral
arthroscopic knee surgery.
On January 23, 2005 Dr. Eric Berkson, an Office medical adviser, reviewed appellant’s
case record which included a history of her right and left knee and right foot conditions and
surgery. He noted the August 18, 1999 finding of Dr. Sarmed G. Elias, a surgeon, that appellant
had a history of bilateral genu valgum and tilt of the patella. Dr. Berkson also noted x-rays of
the right knee which demonstrated some evidence of osteolysis which suggested reflex
sympathetic dystrophy. An MRI scan of both knees revealed degenerative meniscal tear and
chondromalacia of the left knee and a horizontal cleavage tear and cystic changes within the
patella of the right knee. A January 24, 2004 MRI scan of the right knee demonstrated a
complex tear of the anterolateral meniscus and portion of the body of the meniscus. There was
also chondromalacia of the lateral femoral condyle. Dr. Berkson noted Dr. Elias’s history that
appellant had favored her right leg since the employment-related left knee injury and his requests
for surgery. He established that appellant had a preexisting right knee condition dating back to
August 18, 1999. Dr. Berkson related that both knees were subjected to the nontraumatic and
nonwork-related degeneration found by Dr. Elias on August 18, 1999. He opined that
appellant’s right knee condition was not a consequential injury of her employment-related left
knee injury. Dr. Berkson further opined that arthroscopic debridement may be considered
reasonable medical treatment but it should not be authorized as a work-related condition.
Appellant underwent right knee surgery on March 16, 2005 which was performed by
Dr. Elias.
In a June 23, 2005 letter, the Office advised appellant that, since her claim had only been
accepted for a left knee condition, no other conditions could be authorized. It rescinded its prior
authorization for bilateral knee surgery. The Office noted that Dr. Berkson’s January 23, 2005
opinion that appellant’s right knee condition was not due to the accepted November 20, 2001
employment injury. It advised that she was being referred for a second opinion evaluation to
determine whether her right knee condition should be considered a consequential injury of the
accepted left knee injury and whether surgery should be approved.
On July 20, 2005 the Office referred appellant, together with a statement of accepted
facts, the case record and a list of questions to be addressed, to Dr. Leonard R. Smith, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon.
In an August 10, 2005 report, Dr. Smith reviewed a history of appellant’s November 20,
2001 left knee injury, her right knee and foot conditions and medical treatment. He noted her
left and right knee symptoms and physical limitations. On x-ray examination of both knees,
Dr. Smith reported mild osteoporosis of the right lower extremity and more marked findings on
the left, considerable lateral displacement of the patella on the left and right, narrowing on the
right medial joint line and marked narrowing on the left, irregularity on the medial femoral
condyle, valgus deformity on the right and significant narrowing of the patellofemoral junction

2

with chondromalacia of the patella bilaterally. On physical examination, he reported healed
arthroscopic surgery scars on both knees. On the right there was tenderness anteriorly and on the
left it was anteriorly and posteriorly. On the right there was mild loss of hollow landmarks.
There was marked loss of the hollow landmarks on the left. Collateral and cruciate ligaments on
the right were intact. There was a positive drawer sign on the left with indication of anterior
cruciate instability. Internal and external rotation of the tibia upon the bent femur on the right
was normal, on the left they were limited five degrees. Slocum, grinding, varus and valgus
straining McMurray and Ballottenient tests were negative on the right. There was 1+ crepitation
in both knees. Dr. Smith reported his circumference measurements for the thighs, knees and
calves. Anterior and posterior tibial pulses were intact. There was a decreased patellar tendon
reflex on the right. There was a moderately antalgic gait on the left. A valgus deformity was
noted on the left. Dr. Smith stated that appellant had difficulty in squatting and rising to a
standing position. Appellant had full passive range of motion in the right knee with extension to
180 degrees and flexion to 135 degrees. On the left there was limitation of 20 degrees of passive
extension and 10 degrees of passive flexion.
As to whether appellant’s right knee was a consequence of the left knee injury, Dr. Smith
noted a history of left knee problems and multiple surgical procedures prior to
November 20, 2001. He stated that the disconnect between the time of the alleged onset of
symptoms from the accepted employment injuries and resulting surgery caused considerable
doubt regarding causal relationship based on his findings, with the exception of a possible
recurrent meniscal injury. Dr. Smith noted that the described history of injury was not usually
associated with meniscal injury and may only be an aggravation of a preexisting condition. He
stated that it was extremely difficult to quantify what, if any, residual findings were on the basis
of the November 2001 employment injuries or preexisting conditions. Dr. Smith opined that
appellant appeared to have reached maximum medical improvement noting, that she had
returned to her previous work activities. He could not recommend any specific treatment
modalities other than nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication. Dr. Smith concluded that
appellant was able to work full time in a sedentary position with restrictions that were probably
permanent in nature.
In a March 21, 2007 letter, appellant stated that on October 17, 2003 she filed a CA-1
form for a tear in her right knee that resulted from jumping out of the way of a moving object at
work to prevent her from falling onto the floor. She believed that this incident caused her right
knee injury.
By decision dated April 24, 2007, the Office denied appellant’s claim. It found that the
medical evidence was insufficient to establish that she sustained a right knee condition that
necessitated surgery as a consequence of her accepted November 20, 2001 employment-related
left knee injury.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
The general rule respecting consequential injuries is that, when the primary injury is
shown to have arisen out of and in the course of employment, every natural consequence that
flows from the injury is deemed to arise out of the employment, unless it is the result of an

3

independent intervening cause, which is attributable to the employee’s own intentional conduct.1
The subsequent injury is compensable if it is the direct and natural result of a compensable
primary injury.2 With respect to consequential injuries, the Board has stated that, where an
injury is sustained as a consequence of an impairment residual to an employment injury, the new
or second injury, even though nonemployment related, is deemed, because of the chain of
causation to arise out of and in the course of employment and is compensable.3
Proceedings under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act are not adversary in
nature, nor is the Office a disinterested arbiter.4 While the claimant has the burden to establish
entitlement to compensation, the Office shares responsibility in the development of the evidence.
It has the obligation to see that justice is done.5 Accordingly, once the Office undertakes to
develop the medical evidence further, it has the responsibility to do so in the proper manner.6
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision as to whether appellant
sustained a right knee condition consequential to her November 20, 2001 employment-related
left knee strain and meniscus tear.
In an August 10, 2005 report, Dr. Smith, an Office referral physician, provided his
findings, among other things, on x-ray examination of appellant’s knees. He reported mild
osteoporosis of the right lower extremity and more marked findings on the condition on the left.
Dr. Smith also reported considerable lateral displacement of the patella on the left and right,
narrowing on the right medial joint line and marked narrowing on the left, irregularity on the
medial femoral condyle, valgus deformity on the right and significant narrowing of the
patellofemoral junction with chondromalacia of the patella bilaterally. He expressed doubt
regarding causal relationship based on most of his findings but noted the exception of a possible
recurrent meniscal injury. Dr. Smith addressed appellant’s history of left knee problems and
multiple surgical procedures prior to November 20, 2001, noting a disconnect between the time
of the alleged onset of her symptoms from the accepted employment injuries and resulting
surgery. He speculated that appellant may have only sustained an aggravation of a preexisting
condition as the described history of injury was not usually associated with a meniscal injury.
However, Dr. Smith related that it was extremely difficult to quantify what, if any, residual
findings were on the basis of the November 2001 employment injuries or preexisting conditions.
He found that appellant appeared to have reached maximum medical improvement noting, as she
had returned to her previous work activities. Dr. Smith concluded that she was capable of
working full time in a sedentary position with restrictions that were probably permanent in
1

Albert F. Ranieri, 55 ECAB 598 (2004).

2

Id.; Carlos A. Marrero, 50 ECAB 117 (1998); A. Larson, The Law of Workers’ Compensation § 10.01 (2005).

3

Kathy A. Kelley, 55 ECAB 206 (2004).

4

Vanessa Young, 55 ECAB 575 (2004).

5

Richard E. Simpson, 55 ECAB 490 (2004).

6

Melvin James, 55 ECAB 406 (2004).

4

nature. The Board has held that medical opinions that are speculative or equivocal in nature are
of diminished probative value.7 The Board finds that Dr. Smith’s opinion is speculative as he did
not provide an unequivocal opinion addressing the causal relationship between appellant’s right
knee conditions and her accepted employment-related left knee injuries. Further, Dr. Smith was
uncertain about whether she had any continuing residuals related to her employment-related left
knee injuries, whether she had reached maximum medical improvement and the duration of her
physical restrictions. The Board, therefore, finds that the record does not include a probative
medical opinion on the issue of whether appellant sustained a right knee injury consequential to
her employment-related left knee injuries.
Once the Office undertakes development of the record, it has the responsibility to do so in
a proper manner.8 Given the deficiencies in Dr. Smith’s report, the Office should not have
denied appellant’s claim for a consequential injury. Accordingly, the Board will remand the case
to the Office for appropriate further medical development. On remand, the Office should secure
a medical opinion that resolves the question of whether appellant has sustained a right knee
injury and requires surgery as a consequence of her accepted November 20, 2001 employmentrelated left knee strain and meniscus tear. After further development as deemed necessary, it
should issue an appropriate merit decision on appellant’s claim.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision as to whether appellant
sustained a right knee injury and required surgery as a consequence of her accepted
November 20, 2001 employment-related left knee injuries.

7

L.R. (E.R.), 58 ECAB ___ (Docket No. 06-1942, issued February 20, 2007); D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006);
Cecelia M. Corley, 56 ECAB 662 (2005).
8

Melvin James, supra note 6.

5

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 24, 2007 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further development
consistent with this decision of the Board.
Issued: February 23, 2009
Washington, DC

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

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

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

6


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
D.V., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SACRAMENTO
PERFORMANCE CLUSTER,
West Sacramento, CA, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Docket No. 21-1259
Issued: March 15, 2022

Case Submitted on the Record

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

JURISDICTION
On August 16, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from April 9 and July 21, 2021 merit
decisions 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.
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a right foot condition
causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On February 4, 2021 appellant, then a 55-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational
disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she began experiencing occasional burning and pain on
1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

the side and bottom of her right heel due to factors of her federal employment, including excessive
walking. She explained that approximately two months prior to filing her claim she began
experiencing burning pain in her heel at the end of her workday, which worsened with increased
walking pace. Appellant alleged that she first became aware of her claimed condition and realized
its relation to her federal employment on January 18, 2021. She stopped work on
February 1, 2021.
In a statement dated January 27, 2021, appellant reiterated the details of the pain symptoms
she experienced due to her employment activities, which culminated in November 2020. She
related that, thereafter, she experienced worsened pain in the last two weeks. Appellant asserted
that she did not injure her foot and that the ongoing pain caused her to seek medical treatment.
On January 29, 2021 Dr. Wanda Blaylark, a Board-certified occupational medicine
specialist, diagnosed right plantar fasciitis and indicated that appellant should only perform
stationary work duties through February 5, 2021.
In a February 4, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of
her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to establish her
claim and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP also requested a narrative medical
report from appellant’s treating physician containing a detailed description of findings and a
diagnosis, explaining how her work activities caused, contributed to, or aggravated her medical
condition. In a separate development letter of even date, it requested that the employing
establishment provide comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding the accuracy of her
allegations. OWCP afforded both parties 30 days to respond.
A January 29, 2021 note from Dr. Blaylark recounted appellant’s complaints of pain that
she alleged began two months prior and had worsened in the last two weeks. Dr. Blaylark noted
that appellant’s official work duties required her to constantly walk during her delivery route and
that she indicated brisk walking worsened the pain. She also related that appellant denied any
previous right foot condition and that her condition was a work-related injury. In a medical report
of even date, Dr. Blaylark noted appellant’s diagnosed condition and modified work schedule.
On February 5, 2021 appellant followed up with Dr. Blaylark and advised that she had not
experienced improvement in her symptoms following her medical treatment, but that she can
return to work with modified duties. In a work duty status report of even date, Dr. Blaylark
indicated that appellant was in a temporary alternate work status from February 5 to 22, 2021 and
provided modified duties requiring no more than 20 minutes per hour of standing or walking during
that period.
On February 18, 2021 appellant responded to OWCP’s development questionnaire
explaining that her official duties require her to continuously walk an average of five to six hours
while carrying up to 30 pounds of mail on her delivery route. She further asserted that she did not
experience any foot pain previously and that she began experiencing increased pain by the end of
her delivery route. Appellant also indicated that she did not engage in any sports or physical
activities outside of her federal employment.

2

In a February 22, 2021 note, Dr. Blaylark reported that appellant’s condition had slightly
improved with the prescribed medical treatment; however, she continued to experience significant
discomfort when she walked. In a work duty status report of even date, she indicated that appellant
should continue her current work restrictions until March 15, 2021.
A March 15, 2021 note from Dr. Blaylark noted that appellant had seen improvement from
her medical treatment; however, she indicated that appellant was unable to perform the duties of
her date-of-injury position. In a work duty status report of even date, Dr. Blaylark modified her
work restrictions to a maximum of 30 minutes of prolonged standing or walking until
April 26, 2021.
By decision dated April 9, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim,
finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a right heel condition
causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. Consequently, it found that
she had not met the requirements to establish an injury or medical condition causally related to the
accepted employment factors.
OWCP received a March 25, 2021 note from Dr. Timothy Bernard, a podiatrist, who
opined that appellant’s right plantar fasciitis was aggravated by her prolonged walking and
standing. Dr. Bernard further noted that she did not experience any prior injury or condition of
her right foot before the onset of her current pain.
On April 24, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s April 9, 2021 decision
and attached additional medical evidence. In a letter of even date, Dr. Blaylark reiterated that her
official duties require her to walk up to 30,000 steps per day on her route and that she did not
experience any prior injuries with her right foot. She opined that appellant’s right heel condition
was causally related to her work activities of prolonged walking and standing.
By decision dated July 21, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its April 9, 2021 decision.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under FECA 2 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, 3 that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that
any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the

2

Supra note 1.

3

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).

3

employment injury. 4 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim,
regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.5
To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational
disease claim, a claimant must submit: (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
casually related to the identified employment factors by the claimant.6
The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific
condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 7 The opinion of
the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, must
be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the
nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and specific employment factors. 8
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a right foot
condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.
In support of her claim, appellant submitted a letter from Dr. Blaylark dated April 24, 2021
wherein she opined that prolonged standing and walking of up to 30,000 steps a day as part of
appellant’s official duties as a mail carrier aggravated her right plantar fasciitis. The Board finds
that, while she provides an opinion on causal relationship, her reports are insufficient to meet
appellant’s burden of proof, as she did not provide adequate medical reasoning to explain how
prolonged standing and walking caused or contributed to appellant’s diagnosed medical condition.
The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer a rationalized medical explanation
regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal
relationship.9 Thus, Dr. Blaylark’s April 24, 2021 report is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden
of proof.

4

L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020);
James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).
5

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).
6

T.W., Docket No. 20-0767 (issued January 13, 2021); L.D., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); S.C.,
Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019).
7

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 2019); Robert G.
Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).
8

T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 2020);
Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
9

M.E., Docket No. 18-0940 (issued June 11, 2019).

4

Likewise, in a March 25, 2021 medical report from Dr. Bernard, he opined that appellant’s
right plantar fasciitis was aggravated by prolonged walking and standing at work. He noted that,
prior to November 2020, she had no pain or symptoms in her right foot. As noted above, the Board
has held that a medical opinion without adequate rationale is insufficient to establish appellant’s
burden of proof. Moreover, an opinion that a condition is causally related to an employment
incident because the employee was asymptomatic before the injury is insufficient, without
adequate rationale, to establish causal relationship. 10 Therefore, Dr. Bernard’s report is
insufficient to establish appellant’s burden of proof.
The remaining evidence of record includes notes dated January 29 to March 15, 2021 from
Dr. Blaylark where she recounted appellant’s history of injury and medical treatment. Dr. Blaklark
diagnosed right plantar fasciitis and provided work restriction. However, she did not offer an
opinion on causal relationship. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an
opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of
causal relationship. 11 As such, Dr. Blaylark’s remaining reports are of no probative value and are
insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.
As there is no rationalized medical evidence explaining how appellant’s employment duties
caused or aggravated her diagnosed condition, the Board finds that she has not met her burden of
proof.
Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration
to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R.
§§ 10.605 through 10.607.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a right foot
condition causally related to the factors of her federal employment.

10

See S.D., Docket No. 20-1255 (issued February 3, 2021); F.H., Docket No. 18-1238 (issued January 18, 2019);
J.R., Docket No. 18-0206 (issued October 15, 2018).
11

L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

5

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 9 and July 21, 2021 decisions of the Office
of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.
Issued: March 15, 2022
Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

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

6