V.R. and U.S. Postal Service, Central Parcel Post Facility, New York, NY (Board decision, September 13, 2010)

ECAB final decision. The Board affirmed OWCP's December 15, 2009 denial of V.R.'s occupational disease claim for carpal tunnel syndrome and bicipital tendinitis. The Board's decision binds OWCP and is generally not subject to court review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b). A party may petition the Board for reconsideration within 30 days of issuance unless this decision specifies another period, under 20 C.F.R. § 501.7(a).

Plain-English summary

V.R., a postal parcel carrier, claimed that her job caused carpal tunnel syndrome and bicipital tendinitis. She submitted a physician's short note diagnosing those conditions but did not identify the specific job duties she believed caused them. OWCP asked for more factual and medical evidence, and she did not supply it within the time allowed. The Board found that the record did not establish either the relevant work factors or a medical connection between work and the conditions. It affirmed the claim denial.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: FECA, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq., and 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f) govern proof of a claimed employment injury.
• Outcome: December 15, 2009 occupational disease denial affirmed.
• Key point: A diagnosis alone did not establish the job duties or causal medical link needed for compensation.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
V.R., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 10-609
) Issued: September 13, 2010
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CENTRAL PARCEL
)
POST FACILITY, New York, NY, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

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

JURISDICTION

On January 4, 2010 appellant timely appealed the December 15, 2009 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, which denied her occupational disease claim. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of the claim.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant sustained an injury in the performance of duty.

FACTUAL HISTORY

Appellant, a 55-year-old parcel post carrier, filed an occupational disease claim for carpal tunnel syndrome and bicipital tendinitis. She identified April 1, 2008 as the date she first became aware of her condition. Appellant stopped work on July 24, 2009. While the September 20, 2009 claim (Form CA-2) included a description of appellant’s upper extremity symptoms, she did not otherwise explain why she believed her condition was employment related. In support of her claim, appellant submitted a September 26, 2009 prescription pad note from Dr. Harold D. Keiser, a Board-certified rheumatologist, who diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and right bicipital tendinitis.1 The employing establishment provided a brief description of appellant’s duties as a parcel post carrier. It also noted that appellant believed her diagnosed conditions were due to repetitive job duties.

The Office advised appellant on October 6, 2009 that the information it had received thus far was insufficient to determine her eligibility for benefits. It noted, inter alia, that appellant had not provided a description of the specific job duties she believed caused or contributed to her claimed conditions. Appellant was also advised to submit a comprehensive medical report from her treating physician. The Office afforded appellant 30 days to submit the requested information.

By decision dated December 15, 2009, the Office denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. It noted that appellant did not respond to its October 6, 2009 request for additional factual information and medical evidence. Consequently, the Office found that appellant failed to establish that she sustained an injury as alleged.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

A claimant seeking benefits under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2 has the burden of establishing the essential elements of her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence, including that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that any specific condition or disability claimed is causally related to the employment injury.3

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty, a claimant must submit: (1) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) a factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the identified employment factors.4

ANALYSIS

Appellant’s claim for employment-related carpal tunnel syndrome and bicipital tendinitis is not supported by the factual or medical evidence of record. Dr. Keiser’s prescription pad 1 Part of Dr. Keiser’s September 26, 2009 note is illegible.
2
5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193.
3
20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996). Causal relationship is a medical question, which generally requires rationalized medical opinion evidence to resolve the issue. See Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996). A physician’s opinion on whether there is a causal relationship between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors must be based on a complete factual and medical background. Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989). Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty and must be supported by medical rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s specific employment factors. Id. 4 Victor J. Woodhams, id.

2 diagnoses will not suffice for purposes of establishing an employment-related medical condition. The copy in the record is barely legible, and one cannot determine the basis for his diagnoses or whether Dr. Keiser even identified a specific etiology for the respective diagnoses. Additionally, appellant did not describe in her own words the particular employment duties that she believed either caused or contributed to her carpal tunnel syndrome and/or bicipital tendinitis. The Office properly advised appellant of the deficiencies in her claim and provided her the opportunity to supplement the record. She did not avail herself of the opportunity in a timely fashion and, therefore, the Office denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. Based on the evidence of record, the Board finds that appellant failed to establish that she sustained an injury in the performance of duty. On appeal appellant submitted additional evidence to the Board. The Board cannot consider evidence for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 10.501.2(c).

CONCLUSION

Appellant has not established that she sustained an injury in the performance of duty.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 15, 2009 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 13, 2010
Washington, DC

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

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

3