United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.R., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Fairfield, AL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1897 

Issued: January 9, 2015 

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 August 25, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 21, 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 her burden of proof to establish an occupational 

disease in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 19, 2014 appellant, then a 56-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim alleging that she developed two herniated discs on the right side of her lower back due to 

her employment duties. She alleged that casing mail, loading trays, and handling heavy 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

packages caused her condition. Appellant became aware of her condition and its relation to her 

federal employment on January 7, 2014. She did not stop work. 

In a March 28, 2014 report, Dr. William Craig, a Board-certified physiatrist, noted that 

appellant complained of low back pain and numbness in the lower limbs. He also noted that she 

related to him that her pain disrupted her sleep at night and that it was aggravated by climbing 

stairs. Upon physical examination, Dr. Craig found that there was tenderness in the lower 

lumbar spine. He advised that x-rays of the back were taken and he diagnosed right lumbar 

radiculopathy, and herniated lumbar disc. Dr. Craig also advised that he treated appellant with a 

transforaminal epidural steroid injection to relieve her pain. 

In a May 19, 2014 statement, Ed Young, a postmaster, advised that he was not at the 

Fairfield office when appellant was injured. He stated that he asked a fellow employee whether 

appellant reported her injury to him and he replied “no.” Mr. Young also stated that appellant 

submitted a blank Form CA-2 to him on April 2, 2014. 

By letter dated June 11, 2014, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence was 

insufficient to establish her claim and advised her of the type of evidence needed to establish her 

claim. It particularly requested that she provide a physician’s opinion supported by a medical 

explanation as to whether specific work exposures contributed to a diagnosed condition. OWCP 

informed appellant that this evidence was crucial to her claim. 

By decision dated July 21, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because the medical 

evidence was insufficient to establish that factors of her employment caused her diagnosed 

conditions. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden to establish 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, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any 

disabilities and/or specific conditions for which compensation is claimed are causally related to 

the employment injury.2

 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.3

Whether an employee actually sustained an injury in the performance of duty begins with 

an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. To establish an occupational disease 

claim, an employee must submit: (1) a factual statement identifying employment factors alleged 

to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or condition; 

(2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition for which 

 2 Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

3 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 
3

compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is 

causally related to the employment factors identified by the employee.4

 

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

causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 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.5 

The weight of medical evidence is determined by its reliability, its probative value, its 

convincing quality, the care of analysis manifested and the medical rationale expressed in 

support of the physician’s opinion.6

 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant claimed that she sustained a low back injury due to factors of her employment. 

There is no dispute that her job includes casing mail, loading trays, and handling packages. 

However, the medical evidence is insufficient to establish that appellant’s claimed back injury is 

causally related to such employment factors. 

The only medical evidence submitted was the March 28, 2014 report from Dr. Craig. In 

his report, Dr. Craig noted that appellant complained of low back pain, numbness in the lower 

limbs, and found that there was tenderness in the lower lumbar spine. He diagnosed right lumbar 

radiculopathy and herniated lumbar disc, and advised that he treated appellant with a steroid 

injection for pain relief. This report is insufficient to discharge appellant’s burden of proof. 

Dr. Craig failed to relate any knowledge of appellant’s federal work duties and did not explain 

how those duties caused or aggravated appellant’s diagnosed conditions. Additionally, 

Dr. Craig’s report does not provide any history of the injury or any opinion regarding causal 

relationship. The Board has held that reports that lack an opinion on causal relationship are of 

little probative value.7

 

Consequently, appellant has submitted insufficient medical evidence to establish her 

claim. 

On appeal, appellant described her job duties and her symptoms. However, the factual 

aspect of the claim is not in dispute. Appellant has failed to provide any medical evidence 

establishing that her particular job duties caused or aggravated an injury. 

 4 R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008); Ernest St. Pierre, 51 ECAB 623 (2000). 

5 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); supra note 3. 

6

 James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991). 

7 See Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004). 
4

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. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not establish an occupational disease caused by workrelated events. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 21, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 9, 2015 

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