United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.K., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, VIRGIN 

ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, St. John, VI, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1789 

Issued: January 12, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 11, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 3, 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 met his burden of proof to establish a traumatic injury in 

the performance of duty on Friday, March 15, 2013. 

On appeal appellant’s attorney asserts that the July 3, 2014 decision is contrary to law 

and fact. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 21, 2013 appellant, then a 53-year-old automotive mechanic, filed a traumatic 

injury claim alleging that on March 15, 2013 he sustained low back and leg pain while lifting and 

installing a 90- to 100-pound sump pump into a sewage tank.2 In support of his claim, he 

submitted a March 18, 2013 report in which Dr. Brian Bacot, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted a history of debilitating low back pain that occurred on April 14, 2011 when 

appellant was lifting a heavy object. Dr. Bacot reported lumbar spine x-ray findings of severe L4 

and L5 degenerative disc disease and an implanted spinal stimulator. He diagnosed low back 

pain radiating into both legs and sciatica. In a March 30, 2013 report, Dr. Alexander N. Lenard, 

Board-certified in orthopedic surgery and an associate of Dr. Bacot, noted that appellant had a 

long history of back issues dating back to the 1980s when he underwent L4-5 surgery and 

recently had a sudden onset of severe back pain with heavy lifting at work. Physical 

examination demonstrated a normal straight leg raise test. Dr. Lenard diagnosed lumbago. On 

April 18, 2013 Dr. Bacot reported that a computerized tomography (CT) scan of the lumbar 

spine confirmed a diagnosis of L4-5 degenerative disc disease and reiterated his diagnoses. 

By letter dated May 3, 2013, OWCP informed appellant of the evidence needed to 

support his claim and asked the employing establishment to respond. In a statement dated 

“March 14, 2013,” appellant indicated that on March 15, 2013 he was helping a coworker install 

a new sewage pump, and he climbed a ladder and was lifting the pump about five feet when he 

felt an electrical shock, after which his back immediately began to hurt. An April 15, 2013 

lumbar spine CT scan study demonstrated marked degenerative disc disease at L4-5. In an 

April 15, 2013 attending physician’s report, Dr. Bacot noted that appellant had a long history of 

back pain with a stimulator in place and was complaining of back pain after lifting a heavy 

object. He diagnosed recurrent back pain and indicated that appellant could perform light duty 

with no lifting or stooping. In a May 10, 2013 report, Dr. Phillip G. St Louis, a Board-certified 

neurosurgeon, advised that decompressive surgery was scheduled for May 14, 2013. A brief 

emergency department discharge summary dated May 22, 2013 indicated that appellant was seen 

that day with a diagnosis of back pain and lumbar strain and was to follow up with Dr. St Louis. 

By decision dated June 5, 2013, OWCP denied the claim because the medical evidence 

was insufficient to establish that a medical condition was diagnosed in connection with the 

claimed work factors. 

Appellant, through his attorney, timely requested a hearing, and submitted additional 

evidence. On August 3, 2013 Dr. Angel L. Soto Vega, a family practitioner, performed a fitnessfor-duty evaluation for the employing establishment. He indicated that appellant ambulated with 

difficulty using a cane and also reported a history of lumbar disc disease dating to 1983 with 

increased pain after a lifting incident on March 15, 2013. Dr. Soto Vega noted the CT scan study 

findings and indicated that Dr. St Louis had recommended surgery. He also reported that he 

reviewed a July 15, 2013 mental health evaluation done by Anne Nayer, licensed in social work, 

 2

 Appellant also filed a CA-7 claim for compensation for the period April 30 to May 3, 2013. 
3

and an August 8, 2013 report from Dr. David D. Weisher, a Board-certified neurologist.3

 

Dr. Soto Vega noted physical examination findings of pain with straight leg raising bilaterally, 

tenderness to palpation of the lumbar spine, and limited lumbar spine range of motion. He 

diagnosed severe chronic lumbar pain, lumbar degenerative disc disease, major depression, 

lumbar radiculitis, and lumbar muscular spasm. Dr. Soto Vega concluded that appellant was not 

stable and it was expected that he would suffer sudden incapacitation from carrying out job 

duties. On September 10, 2013 he indicated that, based on appellant’s medical condition and a 

review of the position description, appellant could not perform the duties of automotive 

mechanic. Dr. Soto Vega advised that appellant’s chronic degenerative spine condition was 

permanent.4

In an October 2, 2013 report, Dr. St Louis noted that appellant was seen for preoperative 

assessment. He diagnosed lumbar disc disorder without myelopathy and indicated that surgical 

fusion would be performed on October 3, 2013.5 An October 3, 2013 CT study of the lumbar 

spine demonstrated multilevel spondylosis with mild central canal stenosis at L4-5 and 

multilevel neuroforaminal narrowing, most severe at L4-5. In reports dated October 18, 2013, 

Dr. St Louis noted a history of a 1983 injury with spinal stimulator placement and a new injury 

in 2013 that caused radiating sharp pain. He diagnosed L4-5 degenerative disc disease with 

severe disc space narrowing and advised that “appellant’s current surgery was related to the 

injury of March 2013 as based on his history and also the findings at the time of surgery.” 

A state compensation insurance fund letter dated September 19, 2013, addressed to Dr. St 

Louis, indicated that his request for surgical authorization and a lumbar brace had been approved 

on September 19, 2013. The approval letter indicated that this was in regard to a California 

injury that occurred on December 29, 1983. 

At the hearing, held on November 13, 2013, appellant testified that in 1983 he hurt his 

back at work in California, had surgery in 1984, and a spine stimulator was later inserted. He 

indicated that the claim was still open. Appellant stated that he began work at the employing 

establishment in 2006 and they were aware of his medical history including that he had a spine 

stimulator in place. He described the Friday, March 15, 2013 incident and indicated that he saw 

Dr. Bacot the following Monday, who referred him to Dr. Lenard and then went to Dr. St Louis 

for surgery on October 3, 2013. The hearing representative asked appellant to provide 

information regarding the 1983 injury in California. 

A decision dated May 4, 1988 by the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board 

awarded appellant 123.75 weeks of compensation, or $16,087.50 and entitlement to further 

medical care. 

 3

 Neither Ms. Nayer’s nor Dr. Weisher’s reports are found in the case record. Dr. Soto Vega indicated that 

Ms. Nayer diagnosed major depressive disorder associated with chronic lumbar pain and that Dr. Weisher indicated 

that appellant’s examination and history suggested surgically significant lumbar stenosis. 

4

 In a September 10, 2013 attending physician’s report, Bonnie O’Rourke-Barr, a physical therapist, noted that 

appellant was seen at physical therapy with a diagnosis of lumbar radiculopathy. She advised that appellant had an 

80 percent disability. 

5

 An operative report is not found in the case record. 
4

By decision dated January 20, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative found that the 

lifting incident occurred on March 15, 2013, but that the medical evidence did not establish a 

causal relationship between the March 2013 incident and any diagnosed condition. 

On April 9, 2014 appellant’s attorney requested reconsideration. He submitted a 

March 18, 2014 “to whom it may concern” letter in which Dr. St Louis noted the April 15, 2013 

CT examination findings and indicated that he reviewed the findings on May 8, 2013. 

Dr. St. Louis stated: 

“At that time, it was determined that these findings correlated with the patient’s 

symptoms of sharp back pain shooting from lower back to bilateral buttocks and 

chronic numbness in calves and toe. In summary, the findings from the CT 

lumbar spine completed on April 15, 2013 correlate with the patient’s symptoms 

from work-related injury from March 15, 2013. Surgery was then recommended 

for his L4-L5 levels.” 

In a merit decision dated July 3, 2014, OWCP found the evidence submitted was 

insufficient to modify the January 10, 2014 decision because the medical evidence did not 

contain a well-reasoned medical explanation with supporting objective findings explaining how 

the March 15, 2013 employment incident caused or aggravated appellant’s lumbar condition. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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 timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation period of FECA, that an injury was sustained 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. Regardless of whether the asserted claim involves traumatic 

injury or occupational disease, an employee must satisfy this burden of proof.6

 OWCP regulations, at 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee) define a traumatic injury as a condition of the 

body caused by a specific event or incident or series of events or incidents within a single 

workday or shift.7

 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. 

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. 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.8

 6 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001). 

7

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee) (1999, 2011); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 

8 Gary J. Watling, supra note 6. 
5

Under FECA, when employment factors cause an aggravation of an underlying physical 

condition, the employee is entitled to compensation for the periods of disability related to the 

aggravation.9 Where the medical evidence supports an aggravation or acceleration of an 

underlying condition precipitated by working conditions or injuries, such disability is 

compensable.10 However, the normal progression of untreated disease cannot be said to 

constitute “aggravation” of a condition merely because the performance of normal work duties 

reveal the underlying condition.11 For the conditions of employment to bring about an 

aggravation of preexisting disease, the employment must cause acceleration of the disease or 

precipitate disability.12 When the aggravation is temporary and leaves no permanent residuals, 

compensation is not payable for periods after the aggravation ceased.13 

 Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish a 

causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.14 The opinion of the physician must be 

based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, 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 employee.15 Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period 

of employment nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by 

employment factors or incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.16

ANALYSIS 

OWCP found and the Board agrees that the March 15, 2013 lifting incident occurred. 

The Board, however, finds that the medical evidence submitted by appellant is insufficient to 

establish that this incident caused a medical condition. 

Appellant has a long history of lumbar spine degenerative disc disease. In the 1980s he 

sustained a work-related injury and was paid compensation by the State of California. Appellant 

had a spinal stimulator inserted after this injury. Following the March 15, 2013 incident, he 

submitted reports from attending orthopedic surgeon Dr. Bacot and his associate Dr. Lenard. 

Dr. Bacot indicated on March 18, 2013 that appellant’s back pain began following a lifting 

incident in April 2011, and both physicians reported a long history of degenerative disc disease. 

Neither physician related a medical condition to the March 15, 2013 lifting incident. Likewise, 

 9

 Raymond W. Behrens, 50 ECAB 221, 222 (1999); James L. Hearn, 29 ECAB 278, 287 (1978). 

10 A.C., Docket No. 08-1453 (issued November 18, 2008). 

11 See Glenn C. Chasteen, 42 ECAB 493 (1991). 

12 A.C., supra note 10. 

13 Raymond W. Behrens, supra note 9. 

14 Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000). 

15 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994). 

16 Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997). 
6

Dr. Soto Vega, who examined for the employing establishment, noted a long history of back pain 

and lumbar degenerative disc disease. He reported that appellant’s pain increased after a lifting 

incident at work on March 15, 2013 but did not identify or diagnose a specific injury. Medical 

evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of 

limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship.17 

Dr. St Louis performed a back surgery in October 2013 paid for by the California 

insurance fund under the California claim. While he advised on March 18, 2014 that the findings 

from an April 15, 2013 CT scan study of the lumbar spine correlated with appellant’s symptoms 

from a March 15, 2013 work-related injury, he did not explain the mechanics of the March 15, 

2013 lifting incident or how the incident caused an injury. He also did not explain the 

relationship, if any, of the previous work injury to the March 2013 incident. 

Medical evidence submitted to support a claim for compensation should reflect a correct 

history, and the physician should offer a medically sound explanation of how the claimed work 

event caused or aggravated the claimed condition.18 No physician did so in this case. 

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 did not meet his burden of proof to establish an 

employment-related injury on March 15, 2013. 

 17 Willie M. Miller, 53 ECAB 697 (2002). 

18 D.D., Docket No. 13-1517 (issued April 14, 2014). 
7

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 3, 2014 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 12, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board