United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.K., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, New York, NY, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1146 

Issued: November 25, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 21, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 31, 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 sustained an injury on November 12, 2011 in the 

performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On November 14, 2011 appellant, then a 52-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic 

injury claim alleging that on November 12, 2011 she injured her lower back when she was 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

unable to pull out the bottom of a broken postal container. She stopped work on 

November 13, 2011 and was placed on continuation of pay until December 27, 2011. 

On November 16, 2011 the employing establishment controverted the claim. It 

contended that appellant had not established fact of injury, that she did not report the claim for 

two days, and that a supervisor indicated that she was not working at the time of the alleged 

incident.2

A November 29, 2011 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan study showed a left 

neural foraminal disc herniation with “moderate left neural foraminal narrowing” and mild 

narrowing on the right. 

On December 2, 2011 Dr. Mahesh D. Chhabria, a Board-certified neurologist, diagnosed 

lumbosacral strain and found appellant should remain off work for three weeks. On 

December 28, 2011 he opined appellant was disabled from work for the next three weeks.3

OWCP accepted the claim as a minor injury but on January 11, 2012 reopened the claim 

because appellant had not returned to work. 

By letter dated January 11, 2012, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional 

factual and medical evidence, including a detailed report from her attending physician addressing 

the causal relationship between any diagnosed condition and the identified work incident. 

By letter dated January 29, 2012, appellant related that on November 12, 2011 she 

strained her back when she tried to pull the gate out of a postal container. She stated, “The post 

con has a latch door at the very bottom that allows you to pull out and up to lock it. I proceeded 

to pull the gate out and it was unknowingly stuck causing me to strain my lower back....” 

Appellant related that she told her supervisor of the incident without delay. The next morning 

she was unable to get out of bed. 

In a note dated February 16, 2012, Dr. Chhabria indicated that on November 12, 2011 

appellant sustained a low back injury at work. He found that she could resume limited-duty 

employment on February 27, 2012. 

By decision dated February 27, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s claim after finding that 

she did not establish fact of injury. 

In a form report dated March 19, 2012, Dr. Chhabria diagnosed lumbosacral strain 

secondary to a herniated nucleus pulposus and right L5 radiculopathy. He provided the history 

of injury as low back pain that began at work after appellant bent down to “open a tight drawer.” 

Dr. Chhabria checked “yes” that the condition was causally related to employment, and provided 

as a reason that appellant “used a defective piece of equipment causing injury to lower back.” 

 2

 On April 4, 2013 OWCP requested that the employing establishment clarify why it stated that appellant was not 

at work at the time of the November 12, 2011 incident; however, it did not respond to the request. 

3

 In a disability certificate dated January 10, 2012, Dr. Chhabria found that appellant was disabled from work for 

three more weeks. 
3

He advised that she was totally disabled from December 2, 2011 to March 20, 2012. 

Dr. Chhabria noted in 2012 she had history of remote lower back injury which was different 

from the 1993 work injury to low back. 

On April 4, 2012 appellant requested reconsideration. 

In a decision dated May 29, 2012, OWCP modified the February 27, 2012 decision to 

reflect that appellant had submitted medical evidence containing a diagnosis but found that she 

had not established that the condition arose from the November 12, 2011 work incident. 

On March 18, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration.4

 

In a report dated March 1, 2013, Dr. Chhabria found that appellant’s low back pain had 

improved. He stated, “On reviewing [appellant’s] symptoms and MRI scan findings as well as 

the description of her low back injury, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, [her] low 

back pain occurred as a result of the bending injury at work in November of 2011. There is a 

direct causal relationship between the type of injury and her symptoms.” Dr. Chhabria 

diagnosed lumbosacral strain and a lumbar herniated nucleus pulposus.5

By decision dated May 14, 2013, OWCP denied modification of its May 29, 2012 

decision. 

In a narrative report dated February 16, 2012, received by OWCP on November 14, 2013, 

Dr. Chhabria diagnosed “lumbosacral strain secondary to [a] disc protrusion with right L5 Adler 

symptoms which had resolved.” He noted that appellant’s symptoms began at work when she 

“bent down and had difficulty opening a drawer and subsequently when she came up she was 

experiencing low back pain. MRI [scan] of the lumbar spine showed a small disc protrusion at 

L4-5.” Dr. Chhabria found that she could return to work with restrictions. 

On May 16, 2012, Dr. Chhabria related that appellant had returned to work five days 

earlier. He diagnosed lumbosacral strain and a lumbar herniated nucleus pulposus with 

significant improvement. 

In a form report dated July 26, 2013, Dr. Chhabria diagnosed lumbosacral strain with 

right radiculopathy. He provided the history as a low back injury after bending at work and 

checked “yes” that the condition was caused or aggravated by employment. Dr. Chhabria 

advised that appellant was totally disabled from December 2, 2011 to March 20, 2012. He noted 

that she had reinjured her back on August 16, 2012. 

On October 17, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration. 

 4

 In a letter dated February 18, 2013, appellant’s niece related that her aunt was unable to get out of bed following 

a November 12, 2011 injury. She had to help appellant perform activities of daily living for around four months. 

5

 The record contains the first page of an August 16, 2012 medical report. 
4

In a decision dated January 31, 2014, OWCP denied modification of its May 14, 2013 

decision. It found that appellant had not submitted sufficiently rationalized medical evidence to 

show that she sustained a work injury on November 12, 2011. 

On appeal appellant contends that she submitted sufficient evidence to establish her 

claim. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA6 has the burden of establishing the essential 

elements of his or her claim, including the fact that the individual is an “employee of the United 

States” within the meaning of FECA; that the claim was filed within the applicable time 

limitation; that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged; and that any 

disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the 

employment injury.7 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.8

To determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of 

duty, OWCP must determine whether “fact of injury” is established. First, an employee has the 

burden of demonstrating the occurrence of an injury at the time, place, and in the manner 

alleged, by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.9 Second, the 

employee must submit sufficient evidence, generally only in the form of medical evidence, to 

establish a causal relationship between the employment incident and the alleged disability and/or 

condition for which compensation is claimed.10 An employee may establish that the employment 

incident occurred as alleged, but fail to show that his or her disability and/or condition relates to 

the employment incident.11

Proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and OWCP is not a disinterested 

arbiter. While the claimant has the burden to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP 

shares responsibility to see that justice is done.12 The nonadversarial policy of proceedings 

under FECA is reflected in OWCP’s regulations at section 10.121.13

 6

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

7 See Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005); Anthony P. Silva, 55 ECAB 179 (2003). 

8 See Elizabeth H. Kramm (Leonard O. Kramm), 57 ECAB 117 (2005); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 

9 See David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); Delphyne L. Glover, 51 ECAB 146 (1999). 

10 See Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997). 

11 Id.

12 See Jimmy A. Hammons, 51 ECAB 219 (1999). 

13 20 C.F.R. § 10.121. 
5

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that she sustained an injury to her low back on November 12, 2011 

when she tried to pull the gate out of a defective postal container. OWCP accepted that the 

incident occurred at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. The issue, consequently, is 

whether the medical evidence establishes that she sustained an injury as a result of this incident. 

In reports dated December 2 and 28, 2011, Dr. Chhabria found that appellant was 

disabled from employment. On February 16, 2012 he diagnosed lumbosacral strain due to a disc 

protrusion and noted that her symptoms started after she tried to open a drawer at work. In a 

March 19, 2012 form report, Dr. Chhabria noted that appellant sustained low back pain after 

trying to open a tight drawer at work. He diagnosed lumbosacral strain secondary to a herniated 

nucleus pulposus and right L5 radiculopathy. Dr. Chhabria checked “yes” that the condition was 

causally related to employment. He provided rationale for his causation finding by explaining 

that appellant “used a defective piece of equipment causing injury to lower back.” On March 1, 

2013 Dr. Chhabria diagnosed lumbosacral strain and a lumbar herniated nucleus pulposus. He 

related that based on appellant’s symptoms, her description of injury and the result of diagnostic 

studies, “[her] low back pain occurred as a result of the bending injury at work in 

November 2011. There is a direct causal relationship between the type of injury and her 

symptoms.” In a July 26, 2013 form report, Dr. Chhabria diagnosed lumbosacral strain with 

right radiculopathy. He provided the history as a low back injury after bending at work and 

checked “yes” that the condition was caused or aggravated by employment. 

The Board has reviewed Dr. Chhabria’s reports and notes that he provided a clear opinion 

that the November 12, 2011 work incident caused the diagnosed conditions of lumbosacral strain 

due to a herniated disc and radiculopathy. He recognizes the preexisting low back condition, but 

supports his diagnosis with the objective findings of the current MRI scan and physical 

examination. Dr. Chhabria evinced knowledge of the factual basis November 12, 2011 work 

incident. His opinion is supportive, unequivocal, bolstered by objective findings, and based on a 

firm diagnosis and an accurate work history. Additionally, Dr. Chhabria’s reports are not 

contradicted by any medical evidence of record.14 His opinion lacks only an explanation of how 

the diagnosed condition was caused by trying to pull a gate out of a broken postal container. 

Consequently, while the medical evidence from Dr. Chhabria is insufficiently rationalized to 

meet her burden of proof to establish that she sustained a back injury on November 12, 2011, it 

raises sufficient inference of causal relationship to require further development by OWCP.15 

Accordingly, the Board will remand the case to OWCP. On remand, it should further develop 

the medical record to determine whether appellant sustained an injury to her lower back on 

November 12, 2011 causally related to factors of her federal employment. Following this and 

such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision. 

CONCLUSION 

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

 14 See E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 2010). 

15 Id. 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 31, 2014 decision of the Office of 

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

consistent with this opinion of the Board. 

Issued: November 25, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board