United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

San Juan, PR, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0950 

Issued: August 17, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 19, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a January 13, 2015 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained 

an injury due to factors of his federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 21, 2013 appellant then a 29-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim alleging that he developed cervical, dorsal, and lumbosacral pain and herniated discs with 

bilateral radiculopathy. He also stated that his physical job duties caused him stress. Appellant 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

attributed his condition to standing and walking while carrying heavy weights in the performance 

of his federal job duties. He stated that he was required to twist, bend, and crouch to deliver the 

mail. 

In a letter dated April 5, 2013, OWCP requested additional factual and medical evidence 

in support of appellant’s occupational disease claim. It noted that he had not provided medical 

evidence of a diagnosed condition and requested a medical report addressing the diagnosis, the 

implicated employment duties and providing an opinion on the causal relationship between his 

duties and his diagnosed condition. 

Appellant provided electrodiagnostic test results including a magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) scan dated February 22, 2013 diagnosing C5-6 degenerative disc disease with disc 

herniation resulting in right-sided nerve root compression and spinal canal stenosis and C6-7 

degenerative disc disease. A computerized tomography (CT) scan dated March 11, 2013 

demonstrated multilevel disc disease in the lumbar spine at L3-4 and L4-5 with mild central 

canal stenosis at those levels as well as mild degenerative facet joint arthritis. Counsel argued on 

April 30, 2013 that appellant had submitted sufficient evidence to establish his claim for 

occupational injury to his neck, back, hands, and legs. She stated that appellant was 

experiencing an emotional condition aggravated by the constant stress at work and the physical 

pain that he suffered. Counsel reviewed each diagnosed condition and the specific work factors 

which she felt caused or contributed to these conditions. 

OWCP denied appellant’s claim by decision dated June 17, 2013, finding that appellant 

had not submitted the necessary medical evidence sufficient to establish his claim for a 

diagnosed condition due to his federal employment duties. Thus, fact of injury had not been 

established. OWCP noted that counsel’s opinion regarding the causal relationship was not 

probative as she was not a physician for the purposes of FECA. 

Appellant requested an oral hearing from OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review on 

July 10, 2013. He submitted a report from Dr. J.E. Rosado, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, who 

had examined appellant on June 13, 2013. Dr. Rosado diagnosed cervical disc degeneration with 

myelopathy. He performed an anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty at C5-6 on 

June 21, 2013. 

Counsel requested a review of the written record rather than an oral hearing from 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review on August 26, 2013. She submitted a September 9, 

2013 report from Dr. Melba Sotomayor, a neurologist, who noted that she had treated appellant 

since February 21, 2013 for progressive shoulder, cervical, and lumbar spine pain. 

Dr. Sotomayor examined appellant and diagnosed compressive cervical myelopathy due to C5-6 

and C6-7 disc protrusion, bilateral cervical radiculopathy, severe bilateral median entrapment 

neuropathy, bilateral shoulder tendinitis, and osteoarthritis, mild knee osteoarthritis, plantar 

fasciitis, and bilateral L5-S1 radiculopathy, bilateral elbow epicondylitis, and bilateral wrist 

tendinitis as well as depression. She found that appellant was totally disabled. 

The record contains 57 pages of documents, primarily medical in nature, in a mixture of 

Spanish and English languages dated beginning June 21, 2013. 
3

By decision dated December 11, 2013, an OWCP hearing representative found that the 

medical evidence did not contain an opinion that appellant’s diagnosed conditions were caused 

or contributed to by his implicated employment duties. The hearing representative concluded 

that appellant failed to meet his burden of proof to establish an occupational disease causally 

related to his employment and affirmed the June 17, 2013 decision of OWCP. 

Counsel requested reconsideration on June 2 and July 7, 2014. She argued that all of 

appellant’s diagnosed conditions were related to his job duties. Counsel stated, “We see that 

Dr. Melba Sotomayor did not address the direct cause of his conditions, but the claimant has no 

other sources of injury outside of his employment. These conditions arose under the normal 

scope of performance of duty....” In a note dated June 11, 2013, Dr. Rosado reported that 

Dr. Sotomayor referred appellant to him due to progressive cervical pain associated with arm 

weakness. He diagnosed cervical radiculopathy associated with a herniated disc at C5-6. 

Appellant resubmitted his diagnostic testing, Dr. Sotomayor’s September 9, 2013 report, 

as well as hospital notes from his June 21, 2013 cervical spine surgery, and submitted 

prescriptions and disability slips on June 16, 2014. Several of these groups of documents are in a 

mixture of Spanish and English. Appellant submitted a series of medical documents largely in 

Spanish regarding a hospitalization beginning on January 22 through 28, 2014 for severe 

depression and other emotional conditions. Appellant requested disability retirement on July 7, 

2014 and social security benefits on March 18, 2014. 

By decision dated January 13, 2015, OWCP reviewed the evidence submitted and noted 

that the opinions of appellant’s counsel regarding the causal relationship between his condition 

and his employment duties was not probative as she was not a physician. It found that none of 

the medical evidence submitted addressed appellant’s work activities or provided an opinion that 

appellant’s diagnosed conditions were related to his employment duties. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

OWCP’s regulations define an occupational disease as “a condition produced by the work 

environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.”2

 To establish that an injury 

was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational disease claim, a claimant must 

submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease 

or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) 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 employment factors identified by the 

claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for which compensation is claimed or, stated 

differently, medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the 

employment factors identified by the claimant. The evidence required to establish causal 

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

background, showing a causal relationship between the claimed condition and identified factors. 

 2

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q). 
4

The belief of a claimant that a condition was caused or aggravated by the employment is not 

sufficient to establish causal relation.3

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision. 

OWCP accepted that appellant was required to stand, walk, carry heavy weights, twist, 

bend, and crouch to deliver the mail. It also accepted that appellant had medical evidence of a 

diagnosed condition including cervical disc degeneration, herniated disc at C5-6 bilateral 

cervical radiculopathy, severe bilateral median entrapment neuropathy, bilateral shoulder 

tendinitis and osteoarthritis, mild knee osteoarthritis, plantar fasciitis and bilateral L5-S1 

radiculopathy, bilateral elbow epicondylitis, and bilateral wrist tendinitis as well as depression 

based on the reports of Drs. Sotomayor and Rosado. OWCP denied appellant’s claim on the 

grounds that the medical evidence did not establish a causal relationship between his diagnosed 

conditions and his implicated employment duties. The case record, however, does not contain a 

translation of the Spanish portions of the medical records which include both of appellant’s 

hospitalizations. The Board has held that it is unreasonable for OWCP to deny a claim before it 

attempts to secure an accurate translation of the relevant evidence.4

 For OWCP and the Board to 

properly consider all evidence of record, an accurate translation of the Spanish medical records is 

needed. Therefore, the case will be remanded for this purpose and, after conducting such further 

development as it may find necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for a decision and must be remanded for 

further development of the record. 

 3 Lourdes Harris, 45 ECAB 545, 547 (1994). 

4 Ana D. Pizarro, 54 ECAB 430 (2003) (finding that appellant submitted medical evidence in Spanish, that 

OWCP did not analyze or seek a translation of this medical evidence and remanding the case for this purpose); 

Armando Colon, 41 ECAB 563 (1990) (OWCP abused its discretion in denying an employee’s request for 

reconsideration on the grounds that the evidence submitted lacked probative value because it was in a foreign 

language); see also H.S., Docket No. 11-1170 (issued December 14, 2011); M.T., Docket No. 09-208 (issued 

November 9, 2009); and A.G., Docket No. 08-206 (issued May 12, 2008). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 13, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: August 17, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board