United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.B., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL 

CENTER, Long Beach, CA, Employer

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0638 

Issued: August 21, 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 January 24, 20151

 appellant filed a timely appeal of a July 30, 2014 merit decision 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 to 

consider the merits of the case.3

 1

 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from July 30, 2014, the date of OWCP’s last decision was 

January 26, 2015. Since using January 27, 2015, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards 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 January 24, 2015, rendering the appeal timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1). 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3

 Appellant submitted new evidence in support of her claim on appeal. As OWCP did not review this evidence in 

reaching a final decision, the Board may not consider it for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof in establishing that she 

developed an occupational disease due to factors of her federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 21, 2014 appellant, then a 59-year-old medical support assistant, filed an 

occupational disease claim, Form CA-2, alleging that she developed respiratory, eye, throat, and 

lung conditions due to working in the transition center booth on August 20, 2012. She stated that 

the booth was located in an open public area underneath a blowing ventilation system. Appellant 

asserted that, due to exposures to circulating vapors, she developed constriction of her breathing, 

burning eyes, or burning of her skin. 

In notes dated February 5 and December 21, 2013, Dr. Ghan S. Lohiya, a physician 

Board-certified in preventative and occupational medicine, stated that appellant had allergies to 

multiple environmental allergens, asthma, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis. He stated that 

she was a hypersusceptible worker with symptom exacerbation by occupational exposure to 

dusts, odors, perfumes, air-fresheners, service dogs, and carpet. Dr. Lohiya recommended that 

appellant employ a respirator, work from home or work in areas relatively free of her allergens. 

In a letter dated February 13, 2014, OWCP requested that appellant provide additional 

factual and medical evidence in support of her claim. It also requested factual evidence from the 

employing establishment in a letter dated February 13, 2014. 

On August 5, 2005 appellant was reassigned for medical reasons to a carpet-free and 

latex-free environment. 

Appellant’s supervisor provided appellant with notice on October 23, 2012 that she was 

not to wear a gas mask or any device that obstructed her face or prevented her from speaking 

with staff and patients during her tour of duty. 

Dr. Anoshie Ratnayake, a pediatrician, diagnosed asthma on July 19, 2012 and stated that 

appellant was sensitive to airborne irritants and recommended that she work the night shift. On 

August 6, 2012 he again stated that she had asthma that was triggered by airborne irritants and 

recommended that if she is exposed to these irritants that she wear a mask during exposure. 

Dr. Judson Schoendorf, an allergist, completed a note on July 16, 2013, stating that 

appellant had asthma that was triggered by airborne irritants such as perfumes, air fresheners, 

cigarette smoke, grasses, trees, cats, and dogs. He stated that, if she was exposed to these 

allergens, she should wear a sealed respirator mask. Dr. Schoendorf approved telework for six 

months due to environmental allergens. 

Appellant submitted an e-mail dated July 24, 2013 from James Lohaus, coworker, noting 

that on June 24, 2013 the cologne that he applied at 7:30 a.m. caused a worker at 9:30 a.m. to 

repeatedly exclaim that his cologne was impacting her, leave her duty station, notify her 

supervisor, document the impact, and send him an e-mail. Mr. Lohaus stated that the worker was 

wearing a surgical mask. 
3

In an e-mail dated July 11, 2013, appellant stated that her current job duties consisted of 

operating a computer as her telephone lines had been removed in July 2012. Mr. Lohaus’ first 

task was to set up the high efficiency particular assertance air cleaning system for purification 

within cubicle one, her work area. Appellant was then to startup the application for daily arrivals 

and recalls. 

On August 7, 2013 appellant requested reasonable accommodations including working 

the night shift and the ability to telework. 

On November 27, 2013 appellant reported exposures to chemicals, vapors, heavy 

perfumes, colognes resulting in constriction, and blurry vision. 

The employing establishment responded to OWCP’s requested for information on 

February 21, 2014. It denied that appellant had any exposure to potentially harmful substances 

and submitted information from an industrial hygienist. In a report dated February 25, 2014, 

James M. Bachman, an industrial hygienist, stated that an indoor air quality investigation was 

conducted on August 20, 2012 at the employing establishment and the general air quality 

parameters were within acceptable levels and not expected to cause any adverse effects to 

employees working in the area. He further stated that there were no chemicals used in the area, 

no carpet, and the overhead air handling system provided 12 air changes per hour, twice the 

number of changes per hour required in an office area. Mr. Bachman stated, “This Indoor Air 

Quality Investigation has revealed that there are no environmental conditions in the work area 

that would cause the complaints that were made by worker(s) in the area.” 

Appellant submitted notes from a physician assistant dated July 9, 2013 and 

May 20, 2014. 

By decision dated July 30, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that she failed 

to submit the necessary factual or medical evidence to establish her claim for exposure to her 

known allergens in the performance of her job duties. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.”4

 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. 

 4

 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.5

ANALYSIS 

Appellant has submitted medical evidence from Dr. Lohiya, Dr. Ratnayake, and 

Dr. Schoendorf diagnosing allergies and asthma which are exacerbated by exposure to her 

allergens including cigarette smoke, dust, odors, perfumes, air-fresheners, service dogs, cats, and 

carpet. She alleged that she was exposed to these allergens in the performance of duty. 

The Board finds that appellant did not submit sufficient factual evidence to establish the 

occurrence or aggravation of her diagnosed conditions. 

The employing establishment disputed appellant’s assertion of allergen exposures in the 

performance of duty. It submitted a report from an industrial hygienist, Mr. Bachman, stating 

that her work area did not contain carpet, which reduced dust, that no chemicals were used in the 

area, and the overhead air handling system provided 12 air changes per hour, twice the number 

of changes per hour required in an office area. Mr. Bachman stated that the general air quality 

parameters were within acceptable levels and not expected to cause any adverse effects to 

employees working in the area. Appellant has not provided any specific factual evidence to 

contradict that provided by the employing establishment and has not established exposure to 

allergens in the performance of her job duties.6

The Board finds that appellant has not provided the necessary factual evidence to 

establish exposure to allergens in the performance of duty. Appellant has not submitted any 

factual evidence substantiating her allegations that she was exposed to specific allergens at the 

employing establishment and the employing establishment has submitted evidence to dispute her 

general allegations. 

Dr. Schoendorf stated that appellant had asthma triggered by airborne irritants such as 

perfumes, air fresheners, cigarette smoke, grasses, trees, cats and, dogs. Dr. Ratnayake 

diagnosed asthma on July 19, 2012 and stated that she was sensitive to airborne irritants and 

recommended that she work the night shift or that she wear a mask during exposure to airborne 

irritants. The Board finds that neither Dr. Schoendorf nor Dr. Ratnayake provided a clear 

opinion based on a proper factual background supporting appellant’s claim that her asthma was 

caused or irritated by workplace exposures. Neither physician explained the basis of their 

opinions that she was exposed to irritants at work and neither physician offered any factual 

support that irritants were present in her workplace. 

Dr. Lohiya stated that appellant was a hypersusceptible worker with symptom 

exacerbation by occupational exposure to dusts, odors, perfumes, air-fresheners, service dogs, 

and carpet. The Board finds that this report is not based on a proper factual background as the 

industrial hygienist, Mr. Bachman, stated that her work area did not contain carpet, that dust was 

reduced, and that no chemicals were used in the area. The record does not support Dr. Lohiya’s 

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

6 S.B., Docket No. 08-2447 (issued November 20, 2009). 
5

allegations that appellant was exposed to her listed allergens and therefore his unsupported 

opinion appellant’s exposure to her allergens exacerbated her symptoms is not sufficient to meet 

her burden of proof. As appellant has not established employment exposures to her diagnosed 

allergens, the medical evidence she submitted is not based on a proper factual background7

 and 

lacks the probative value necessary to establish her claim. 

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 in establishing that she 

sustained a respiratory condition or an aggravation of her preexisting allergies or asthma due to 

exposures to allergens at the employing establishment. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 30, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: August 21, 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 

 7

 A physician’s opinion must be based on a complete factual and medical background. M.S., Docket No. 14-1079 

(issued July 29, 2015) (finding that when the record does not substantiate a physician’s representation of a 

claimant’s history, his report lacks probative value). Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).