United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.W., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE 

COMMISSARY AGENCY, Newport, RI, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-362 

Issued: May 1, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On December 5, 2013 appellant, through her attorney, filed a timely appeal from the 

September 9, 2013 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) 

denying her traumatic injury claim. 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 

back injury on March 14, 2013 while in the performance of duty. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 14, 2013 appellant, then a 45-year-old store associate, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging a back injury as a result of lifting a bag of dog food weighing 40 or 

50 pounds at 3:00 p.m. that date. 

In an undated medical report, Laureen J. Martin, a registered nurse practitioner, stated 

that appellant was seen in the office on March 15, 2013 and reevaluated on March 26, 2013. 

Appellant was diagnosed as having an acute lumbar strain with radiculitis. She was excused 

from work from March 15 to April 8, 2013. Ms. Martin concluded that appellant could return to 

work on April 9, 2013 with no physical restrictions. 

In a March 15, 2013 note, Dr. William D. Levin, a Board-certified family practitioner, 

diagnosed low back with right sciatica. He advised that appellant’s prognosis was good. 

By letter dated March 28, 2013, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s 

claim. Appellant filed her claim on the same day that she told Diane Saez, her supervisor, that 

she would obtain a medical note putting her off work if Ms. Saez did not address her comment 

concerning an employee. She requested a Form CA-1 from Kim Prashaw, a secretary, between 

1:30 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. on March 14, 2013 which was prior to the time of her injury. An 

accompanying journal report listed appellant’s sales transactions between 1:30 p.m. and 3:00 

p.m. on March 14, 2013 and noted that no dog food was purchased during this period. 

On March 28, 2013 OWCP advised appellant that the evidence submitted was 

insufficient to establish her claim. It requested additional factual and medical evidence. OWCP 

also requested that the employing establishment submit any medical evidence regarding 

treatment appellant received at its medical facility. 

In an April 9, 2013 statement, appellant described the incident of March 14, 2013. On 

March 13, 2013 she told Ms. Saez that something needed to be done immediately regarding 

problems the employees had with another employee. Appellant denied stating that she was 

going to get a doctor’s note. Her injury occurred the day after and not on the same day as her 

conversation with Ms. Saez. Appellant injured her back while helping a customer with a bag of 

dog food that had fallen from the bottom of the customer’s cart. After her injury she asked 

Ms. Prashaw for a Form CA-1. 

In an April 9, 2013 report, Ms. Martin stated that appellant’s condition had worsened and 

she was being sent to a specialist for further evaluation. Appellant was medically excused 

through April 23, 2013 due to her back condition. 

In an October 18, 2011 report, Dr. John R. Caldarelli, a Board-certified radiologist, 

advised that a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the lumbar spine showed signs of 

degenerative disc disease and mild endplate spondylosis and mild central disc protrusion at the 

L4-5 and L5-S1 disc levels. There were no signs of focal marrow edema. 

By letter dated April 11, 2013, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s 

claim for continuation of pay for the period April 9 to 23, 2013. It contended that the medical 

evidence was insufficient to establish that she was disabled for work. 
3

In a May 2, 2013 decision, OWCP accepted that the March 14, 2013 incident occurred as 

alleged. It denied appellant’s claim, however, finding that she failed to submit sufficient medical 

evidence to establish that she sustained a back injury causally related to the accepted 

employment incident. 

On May 10, 2013 appellant requested a review of the written record by an OWCP hearing 

representative. 

A May 10, 2013 report Dr. Sumit K. Das, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, stated that 

appellant should remain out of work through June 17, 2013. Appellant had low back pain that 

radiated through her right leg. Dr. Das advised that her symptoms occurred while picking up a 

heavy bag at work on March 14, 2013. An MRI scan of the lumbar spine was significant for 

degenerative changes with a disc herniation and an annular tear at two levels in the lumbar spine. 

Dr. Das concluded that the MRI scan findings and appellant’s symptoms were consistent with a 

heavy lifting injury on March 14, 2013. 

In a March 20, 2013 memorandum, Ms. Saez noted that her conversation with appellant 

regarding a co-employee occurred on March 13, 2013. As she was leaving work, Ms. Prashaw 

informed her about appellant’s injury. Ms. Saez questioned why appellant did not report her 

injury to a manager. On March 15, 2013 she was informed by Ms. Prashaw that appellant had 

submitted a doctor’s note placing her off work for 10 days. Ms. Saez related that the employees 

who worked with appellant on the date-of-injury stated that she did not tell them about her injury 

nor did they witness any injury. 

In a March 26, 2013 memorandum, Ms. Prashaw stated that she gave appellant a 

Form CA-1 between 1:30 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. on March 14, 2013 for her back injury sustained on 

that date. At 2:30 p.m. on the same day, she informed Ms. Saez about appellant’s injury and her 

plan to see a doctor on March 15, 2013 to be taken off work. 

In a September 9, 2013 decision, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

May 2, 2013 decision. He found that appellant failed to submit rationalized medical evidence to 

establish that she sustained a back injury causally related to the March 14, 2013 employment 

incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2

 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial 

evidence3

 including that he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty and that any 

specific condition or disability for work for which he or she claims compensation is causally 

related to that employment injury.4

 2 Id. at §§ 8101-8193. 

3 J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 58 (1968). 

4 G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 
4

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established.5 

There are two components involved in establishing the fact of injury. 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.6

 

The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and 

generally can be established only by medical evidence.7

 The evidence required to establish 

causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence, based upon complete factual and 

medical background, showing a causal relationship between the claimed condition and the 

identified factors.8

 The belief of the claimant that a condition was caused or aggravated by the 

employment is insufficient to establish a causal relationship.9

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that on March 14, 2013 appellant lifted a bag of dog food at work in the 

performance of duty. It found that the medical evidence failed to establish that she sustained a 

back injury as a result of the accepted incident. The Board finds that appellant failed to provide 

sufficient medical evidence demonstrating that she sustained a back condition causally related to 

the March 14, 2013 employment incident. 

The May 10, 2013 report from Dr. Das stated that lumbar MRI scan findings of 

degenerative changes with a disc herniation and an annular tear at two levels. Dr. Das related 

appellant’s low back pain that radiated through her right leg was caused by the March 14, 2013 

employment incident. The report consists of one paragraph without any discussion of appellant’s 

history of back pain.10 Moreover, Dr. Das did not provide sufficient medical rationale explaining 

how the accepted employment incident caused the diagnosed conditions. His opinion is 

speculative stating that appellant’s symptoms were consistent with a heavy lifting injury. The 

Board has held that a medical opinion not fortified by medical rationale is of diminished 

probative value.11 The Board finds that Dr. Das’ report does not establish appellant’s claim. 

Dr. Levin’s March 15, 2013 note diagnosed low back with right sciatica. He did not 

provide a medical opinion addressing whether appellant’s diagnosed back condition was caused 

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

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

7 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); see 5 U.S.C. § 8101(5) (injury defined); 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.5(ee), 10.5(q) 

(traumatic injury and occupational disease defined, respectively). 

8 Lourdes Harris, 45 ECAB 545 (1994); see Walter D. Morehead, 31 ECAB 188 (1979). 

9 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383, 389 (1994). 

10 B.P., Docket No. 12-1345 (issued November 13, 2012); C.F., Docket No. 08-1102 (issued October 8, 2008). 

11 F.T., Docket No. 09-919 (issued December 7, 2009); Elizabeth H. Kramm, 57 ECAB 117, 124 (2005); 

Franklin D. Haislah, 52 ECAB 457 (2001); Jimmie H. Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001) (medical reports not 

containing rationale on causal relationship are entitled to little probative value). 
5

by the March 14, 2013 employment lifting incident.12 The Board finds that Dr. Levin’s report is 

insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

Similarly, Dr. Caldarelli’s October 18, 2011 diagnostic test results are insufficient to 

establish appellant’s claim. He did not provide a medical opinion addressing how her diagnosed 

lumbar conditions were caused by the accepted employment lifting incident.13 The Board finds, 

therefore, that Dr. Caldarelli’s report is insufficient to establish her claim. 

As the reports from Ms. Martin, a nurse, were not cosigned by a physician, they have no 

probative medical value to establish that appellant sustained a back injury as a result of the 

March 14, 2013 employment incident. A nurse practitioner is not a physician as defined under 

FECA.14 

The Board finds that there is insufficient rationalized medical evidence of record to 

establish that appellant sustained a back injury causally related to the accepted March 14, 2013 

employment incident. Appellant did not meet 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 that she 

sustained a back injury on March 14, 2013 while in the performance of duty. 

 12 See K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004); 

Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

13 Id.+- 

 63

14 See 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); A.A., Docket No. 13-1425 (issued September 25, 2013). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 9, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 1, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board