United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.E., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES, Dallas, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1035 

Issued: October 3, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Debra Hauser, Esq., for the appellant 

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 1, 2014 appellant, through his representative, filed a timely appeal from the 

October 31, 2013 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), 

which denied his disability 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 the disability for which appellant claims compensation is causally 

related to his March 10, 2011 employment injury.2

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The record indicates that appellant sustained a traumatic low back injury at work on September 4, 2009 accepted 

under OWCP File No. xxxxxx458. The present appeal deals only with the disability appellant claims resulted from 

his March 10, 2011 employment injury. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 13, 2011 appellant, then a 38-year-old information systems security officer, 

filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that he sustained an aggravation of his “current disability 

lower/mid back pain” on March 10, 2011. He described the cause of the injury as excessive 

walking and standing. Appellant explained that he walked a facility that day. Starting on the 

bottom floor, he walked and stopped momentarily to introduce himself to employees who had 

not seen him in the past. That took approximately 30 to 40 minutes and caused appellant great 

pain “because of my herniated disk and sciatica.”3

 The conversation held him up such that he 

was stationary and standing for the stated duration. Appellant repeatedly stopped and introduced 

himself until he reached the second floor. He walked and met more people. It took 

approximately 20 to 30 minutes to cover the second floor because appellant was in a lot of pain 

and wanted to stop walking and standing. After stopping to talk with one person for 

approximately 15 minutes or more, he went to his car and took pain medication with water. 

Appellant sat in the parking lot for 10 to 15 minutes and tried to ease the pain with the car seat 

vibrator on his back. He stretched and “off weighted,” when drove to his office, where he laid 

on his heating pad with his legs up on his desk. Appellant was in such severe pain that he did not 

leave his desk the rest of the day. He took more medication, went home, went to bed, elevated 

his legs and visited the emergency room the next day. 

At the emergency room, appellant was noted to have a history of chronic low back pain. 

He presented with complaints of increased back pains “since yesterday evening.” Appellant 

attributed the increased pain to doing a walk-through at work; he was not suppose to walk too 

far. He noted increased pains that evening which were a lot worse the next morning. Appellant 

applied bio freeze and took his oxycodone before going to the emergency room. 

Appellant’s past medical history included degeneration of lumbar or lumbosacral 

intervertebral disc, other unspecified disc disorder of the lumbar region and low back pain. He 

was unable to perform the straight leg raising test; he was unable to extend his leg due to pain in 

the mid-spine. 

Dr. John Paul Orkwis, an osteopath and family physician, completed a form report 

indicating that appellant’s lumbar disc disease was caused or aggravated by extended standing 

and walking at work on March 10, 2011. He further indicated that appellant was partially 

disabled since March 10, 2011 and was able to resume light work on May 20, 2011. Shortly, 

thereafter, however, Dr. Orkwis completed a duty status report that showed no restriction of 

appellant’s usual work requirements. 

A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the lumbar spine, obtained on July 16, 

2011, showed normal alignment. At the L5-S1 level, there was disc desiccation and some disc 

height loss with an annular fissure again noted. There was also a central disc protrusion without 

narrowing of the thecal sac. The impression was no significant interval chance when compared 

with an MRI scan obtained in 2008 and 2009. 

 3

 The record shows that appellant had a service-connected intervertebral disc syndrome of the lumbar spine with 

radiculopathy down the left and right lower extremity. 
3

Dr. Orkwis noted that appellant was under care for a protruding central disc at the L5-S1 

spinal cord level. Appellant had documented visits to the emergency room on January 28 and 

March 11, 2011 for exacerbation of back pain. “This is consistent with the presentation of the 

illness. When a patient has a disc protrusion, there are a variety of physical activities that may 

cause exacerbation of the back pain.” 

OWCP accepted appellant’s traumatic injury claim for aggravation of preexisting 

degeneration of lumbar or lumbosacral intervertebral disc. 

Appellant filed Forms CA-7 claiming wage-loss compensation for periods beginning 

October 4, 2011.4

 He claimed that this disability was a result of his March 10, 2011 employment 

injury. 

In a decision dated April 10, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s disability claim on the 

grounds that there was no evidence the accepted aggravation totally disabled him during the 

periods in question. 

Appellant thereafter filed numerous Forms CA-7 claiming wage-loss compensation for 

periods beginning March 11, 2011.5

 He claimed that this disability was a result of his March 10, 

2011 employment injury. 

In a decision dated September 14, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s disability claim on the 

grounds that the record lacked a comprehensive medical opinion providing objective findings 

and fully explaining the claimed disability for work. It found that he had not established that he 

was entitled to wage-loss compensation due to his accepted condition. 

Appellant, through his representative, requested reconsideration. He argued that he 

suffered a reaggravation of preexisting degeneration of lumbar or lumbosacral intervertebral 

disc. Appellant noted that his physician found him incapable of performing the essential 

functions of his position. Therefore, his position was not suitable during the time frames in 

question. To support his reconsideration request, appellant submitted progress notes. 

In a decision dated October 31, 2013, OWCP reviewed the merits of appellant’s case and 

denied modification of its prior decision. 

Appellant’s representative argues that OWCP failed to review the totality of the medical 

evidence contained in the two case files relating to the accepted employment injuries. She 

argues that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish total disability for the time periods 

claimed. 

 4

 These periods included: October 4 to 7, 14 to 21 and 24 to 25 and December 5 to 15, 2011. Appellant also 

claimed wage-loss compensation from December 15, 2011 to January 6, 2012. 

5

 In 2011, these periods included: March 11, 14 to 23 and 14 to 25, April 12 to 22 and 25 to 27, May 9 to 18 

and 25 to 27, June 22 to 29, July 25, August 10 and 15 to 25, September 13 to 14 and September 30 to October 5, 13 

to 20 and 24 to 26, November 18 and November 30 to December 2, December 4 to 17 and 19 to 27, 2011. In 2012, 

these periods included May 22, June 11 to 15 and June 28, 2012. 
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

FECA provides compensation for the disability of an employee resulting from personal 

injury sustained while in the performance of his duty.6

 A claimant seeking benefits under FECA 

has the burden of proof to establish the essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the 

evidence,7

 including that he 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.8

It is not sufficient for the claimant to establish merely that he or she has disability for 

work. He or she must establish that the disability is causally related to the accepted employment 

injury. The claimant must submit a rationalized medical opinion that supports a causal 

connection between the disability claimed and the employment injury. The medical opinion 

must be based on a complete factual and medical background with an accurate history of the 

employment injury and must explain from a medical perspective how the disability in question is 

related to that injury.9

ANALYSIS 

On March 10, 2011 appellant spent approximately one hour walking a facility at work 

and stopping to talk to people along the way. This caused him such severe pain that he had to 

seek relief. Appellant went to the emergency room the next day. Given his significant medical 

history, OWCP accepted his traumatic injury claim for an aggravation of preexisting 

degeneration of lumbar or lumbosacral intervertebral disc. 

Appellant thereafter filed a series of Forms CA-7 claiming compensation for wage-loss 

resulting from the aggravation that occurred on March 10, 2011. He did not submit a narrative 

medical report reviewing the periods of disability claimed and rationally explaining, on the basis 

of objective findings, how that disability was attributable to the March 10, 2011 aggravation, as 

opposed to disability that might otherwise arise from his accepted chronic lumbar disc disease. 

The distinction is critical. As the Board noted earlier, it is not sufficient for appellant to establish 

merely that he was disabled for work or that his position was no longer suitable to his chronic 

medical condition. Appellant must establish through rationalized medical opinion evidence that 

the disability for which he claims compensation was caused by what happened on March 10, 

2011 when he spent about an hour walking a facility at work and stopping to talk to people along 

the way. 

Dr. Orkwis, the attending osteopath, indicated on a form report that appellant was 

partially disabled since March 10, 2011 and was able to resume light work on May 20, 2011. 

His duty status report showed no restriction in appellant’s usual work requirements beginning 

 6

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

7 Nathaniel Milton, 37 ECAB 712 (1986); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55 (1968) and cases cited therein. 

8 Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

9 John A. Ceresoli, Sr., 40 ECAB 305 (1988). 
5

May 20, 2011. In the absence of sound medical reasoning, this evidence is insufficient to 

establish the element of causal relationship.10

Generally, findings on examination are needed to justify a physician’s opinion that an 

employee is disabled for work.11 The Board has held that when a physician’s statements 

regarding an employee’s ability to work consist only of a repetition of the employee’s complaints 

that he or she hurt too much to work, without objective signs of disability being shown, the 

physician has not presented a medical opinion on the issue of disability or a basis for payment of 

compensation.12

Further, the Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the 

absence of any medical evidence directly addressing the specific dates of disability for which 

compensation is claimed. To do so would essentially allow employees to self-certify their 

disability and entitlement to compensation.13

Appellant’s representative argues that OWCP failed to review the totality of the medical 

evidence contained in the two case files relating to the accepted employment injuries. The issue 

in this case is whether appellant has met his burden to establish that his March 10, 2011 

employment injury caused any particular disability for work. The Board has reviewed the 

medical evidence submitted in this case and can find no discussion of whether any specific 

disability for work was the result of what happened on March 10, 2011. Without a narrative 

medical opinion directly addressing the specific periods for which appellant seeks 

compensation,14 the evidence in this case fails to establish that he sustained disability for work 

causally related to the March 10, 2011 aggravation of his preexisting disease. Accordingly, the 

Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof. The Board therefore affirms OWCP’s 

October 31, 2013 decision on the issue of disability due to the March 10, 2011 employment 

injury. 

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. 

All the CA-7 forms appellant filed claiming compensation for wage loss identified the 

cause of that wage loss as the March 10, 2011 employment injury.15 All of the forms identified 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx373, which was created for the employment injury currently on appeal. 

 10 Medical conclusions unsupported by rationale are of little probative value. Ceferino L. Gonzales, 32 ECAB 

1591 (1981); George Randolph Taylor, 6 ECAB 968 (1954). 

11 See Dean E. Pierce, 40 ECAB 1249 (1989); Paul D. Weiss, 36 ECAB 720 (1985). 

12 John L. Clark, 32 ECAB 1618 (1981). 

13 Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001). 

14 The physician need not itemize each of the periods claimed so long as he or she has reviewed a breakdown of 

those periods. 

15 Appellant sometimes identified the injury date as March 11, 2011. 
6

Any claim for disability resulting from appellant’s injury in 2009 should be pursued under the 

appropriate case number. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden to establish that the disability for 

which he claims compensation is causally related to his March 10, 2011 employment injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 31, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 3, 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