United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

K.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Rockford, IL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1206 

Issued: September 8, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 28, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 12, 2014 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 over the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof in establishing that he 

sustained an injury in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 26, 2013 appellant, then a 61-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging that on December 23, 2013 he sustained back pain as a result of a motor vehicle 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

accident when his postal truck was struck by another vehicle from behind. He did not stop work 

at that time. 

In a December 23, 2013 report, Dr. Terry Strawser, a Board-certified family practitioner, 

diagnosed lower back pain, lumbago. He determined that appellant was fit for duty without any 

restrictions. Dr. Strawser found that appellant was having spasms and tenderness of the 

paraspinal muscles. He also reported that appellant had no similar problems in the past. The 

medical report included a narrative of the facts surrounding the accident as reported by appellant, 

indicating that there was a medium force motor vehicle accident to the rear bumper while 

appellant was in the driver’s seat. Dr. Strawser stated that “the patient reports that it was the 

result of an injury, which was work related.” He advised that lumbosacral spine x-rays did not 

reveal any abnormalities. In a December 23, 2013 duty status report (Form CA-17), 

Dr. Strawser also diagnosed appellant with lumbago and advised that he was able to return to 

work without restrictions. 

In a December 30, 2013 report, Dr. Alpa Boshku, a Board-certified family practitioner 

and an associate of Dr. Strawser, diagnosed appellant with lower back pain, lumbago. He noted 

that appellant’s pain worsened since his previous December 23, 2013 visit with Dr. Strawser and 

that he was experiencing spasm and tenderness of paraspinal muscles and tenderness of the 

lumbar muscles. Dr. Boshku repeated the same history of the injury contained in Dr. Strawser’s 

December 23, 2013 report. 

In a letter dated January 10, 2014, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence submitted 

was insufficient to establish the claim. The letter further stated that the diagnosis of “pain” was 

not a valid diagnosis, but rather a symptom. In addition, OWCP advised that evidence 

containing a “physician’s opinion supported by a medical explanation as to how the reported 

work incident caused or aggravated a medical condition” was required. Appellant was also 

advised that he had 30 days to submit the requested documents. 

Appellant submitted reports from Dr. Jason So, a Board-certified family practitioner. In a 

January 3, 2014 report, Dr. So diagnosed appellant with back pain and referred him to a physical 

therapy facility. The report made reference to the car accident and noted that appellant was 

suffering from lower back pain as a result. In a report dated January 15, 2014, Dr. So advised 

the employing establishment that appellant was unable to return to work. He asked that he be 

excused from work from January 12 through 19, 2014. In a CA-17 dated January 21, 2014, 

Dr. So advised that appellant should not return to work until January 31, 2014. He diagnosed 

lumbago. 

By decision dated February 12, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that the 

December 23, 2013 incident occurred as alleged. However, OWCP denied the claim on the 

grounds that the medical evidence did not contain a medical diagnosis in connection with the 

event. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking compensation under FECA has the burden of establishing the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of reliable, probative and substantial 
3

evidence,2 including that he or she is an “employee” within the meaning of FECA and that he or 

she filed his or her claim within the applicable time limitation.3

 The employee must also 

establish that he sustained an injury in the performance of duty as alleged and that his disability 

for work, if any, was causally related to the employment injury.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. 

There are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that he actually experienced the employment incident at 

the time, place and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit medical evidence 

to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.5

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is generally required to establish causal 

relationship. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background, must be one of reasonable medical certainty and must be supported by medical 

rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the 

specific employment factors identified by the claimant.6

ANALYSIS 

On December 23, 2013 appellant was driving his vehicle when it was struck from behind 

by an automobile. The evidence supports that the claimed work incident occurred as alleged. 

Therefore, the Board finds that the first component of fact of injury is established. However, the 

medical evidence is insufficient to establish that the employment incident on December 23, 2013 

caused appellant’s lower back injury. 

In his December 23, 2013 medical report, Dr. Strawser diagnosed appellant with lower 

back pain and lumbago. He indicated that appellant had no prior back problem. Dr. Strawser 

noted a history of how the injury occurred, stating that appellant’s vehicle was struck on the rear 

bumper while he was in the driver’s seat, and advised that he “reports that it was the result of an 

injury, which was work related.” Dr. Strawser appears to merely state the facts as reported to 

him by appellant. He fails to distinguish whether this was his medical opinion or the conclusion 

drawn by appellant as reported to him. A physician’s opinion regarding causal relationship that 

appears to be primarily based on appellant’s own representations rather than on objective 

medical findings is of limited probative value.7

 

 2

 J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 57 (1968). 

3 R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008). 

4 Id.; Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

5

 T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). 

6 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

7 C.M., Docket No. 14-88 (issued April 18, 2014). 
4

Even considering the history provided by Dr. Strawser as his own opinion regarding 

causal relationship, the report fails to provide adequate medical rationale explaining how the 

December 23, 2013 work incident caused or contributed to the diagnosed lumbago. Dr. Strawser 

did not explain how the work incident caused or contributed to appellant’s diagnosed lumbago.8

 

The Board has also held that an opinion that a condition is causally related to an employment 

injury because the employee was asymptomatic before the injury but symptomatic after it is 

insufficient, without supporting rationale, to establish causal relationship.9

 Dr. Strawser’s 

December 23, 2013 duty status report is also insufficient to establish the claim as it does not 

specifically address causal relationship.10

Dr. Boshku’s December 30, 2013 report provided a history of the injury identical to the 

history found in Dr. Strawser’s report. This report, like Dr. Strawser’s report, fails to distinguish 

whether the history provided is the physician’s own professional opinion or the conclusion 

drawn by appellant. However, even to the extent that the statement was Dr. Boshku’s own 

opinion on causal relationship, it is of little probative value as he too did not provide medical 

rationale in support of his opinion. As a result, the report is insufficient to discharge appellant’s 

burden of proof. 

The January 3, 2014 report by Dr. So is also insufficient to discharge appellant’s burden 

of proof. He mentions a rear-end collision and resulting back pain but he does not indicate if the 

collision and injury are employment related. Dr. So does not explain how the work incident 

caused or contributed to appellant’s diagnosed lumbago. Likewise, his January 15, 2014 note 

excusing appellant from work and his January 21, 2014 duty status report also do not specifically 

address causal relationship.11 

Consequently, the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish that the 

December 23, 2013 work incident caused or aggravated a diagnosed medical condition.12

On appeal, appellant argues that he had an on-the-job injury such that his sick leave 

should be reinstated and his medical bills paid. As explained, the medical evidence is 

 8

 See George Randolph Taylor, 6 ECAB 986, 988 (1954) (where the Board found that a medical opinion not 

fortified by medical rationale is of little probative value). 

9 Thomas D. Petrylak, 39 ECAB 276 (1987). 

10 See Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004) (medical evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding the 

cause of an employee’s condition is of diminished probative value on the issue of causal relationship). 

11 See id. 

12 Although causal relationship generally requires rationalized medical opinion, OWCP procedures provide for 

acceptance of a claim without a medical report when the following criteria are satisfied: (1) the condition reported is 

a minor one which can be identified on visual inspection by a lay person (e.g., burns, lacerations, insect stings, or 

animal bites); (2) the injury was witnessed or reported promptly and no dispute exists as to the fact of injury; and 

(3) no time was lost from work due to disability. See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal 

Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3 (January 2013); Melissa A. Carter, 45 ECAB 618 (1994). In the present case, the 

condition reported, lumbago, is not the clear-cut type of condition that can be identified on visual inspection by a lay 

person. Furthermore, appellant also missed time from work. Thus, rationalized medical evidence is required. 
5

insufficient to establish that the December 23, 2013 work incident cause or contributed to an 

injury. Thus, any disability is not presently compensable. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument as part of a formal 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 10.607.13

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not establish that he sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty on December 23, 2013. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 12, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 8, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 13 Appellant submitted new evidence to the Board on appeal and also to OWCP after issuance of the February 12, 

2014 decision. However, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c).