PDF Version

 

 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

____________

 

In the Matter of RONALD JOHNSON and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE,

POST OFFICE, Cleveland, OH

 

Docket No. 97-2866; Submitted on the Record;

Issued August 5, 1999

____________

 

DECISION and ORDER

 

Before   DAVID S. GERSON, WILLIE T.C. THOMAS,

BRADLEY T. KNOTT

 

 

            The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained a back or knee condition in the performance of duty.

            The Board has given careful consideration to the issue involved, the contentions of appellant on appeal and the entire case record.  The Board finds that the decision of the hearing representative of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs dated and finalized August 14, 1997 is in accordance with the facts and the law in this case and hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Office hearing representative.[1]


            The decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs dated and finalized August 14, 1997 and dated October 10, 1996 are affirmed.

Dated,  Washington, D.C.

            August 5, 1999

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                            David S. Gerson

                                                                                                            Member

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                            Willie T.C. Thomas

                                                                                                            Alternate Member

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                            Bradley T. Knott

                                                                                                            Alternate Member



     [1] Appellant submitted reports, in which Drs. Steve Sanford and Mark Roth, both attending Board-certified internists, discussed his back and leg problems.  However, neither of these doctors provided a rationalized opinion relating appellant’s claimed condition to employment factors.