United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

N.O., Appellant 

and 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, SSA 

REGION IV, RPO HUMAN RESOURCES 

OFFICE, Atlanta, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1110 

Issued: September 10, 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 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 20, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 18, 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 injury in the 

performance of duty on October 31, 2013, as alleged. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On November 7, 2013 appellant, then a 52-year-old social insurance specialist claims 

representative, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on October 31, 2013 she 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

sustained an asthma attack due to exposure to dust from a faulty vacuum and chemicals which 

irritated her lungs while she was performing her job duties. She stated that this exposure caused 

her to have an asthma attack resulting in a hospital stay on November 5 and 6, 2013. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a November 5, 2013 prescription note and a 

Memorial Hospital Admission Note listing her medications at discharge. 

By letter dated February 6, 2014, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of record 

was insufficient to support her claim. Appellant was advised of the medical and factual evidence 

needed and was directed to submit this evidence within 30 days. In another letter of the same 

date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment respond to questions pertaining to the 

factual circumstances surrounding the incident. 

In a February 26, 2014 narrative statement, appellant responded to OWCP’s 

questionnaire stating that on October 31, 2013 she was processing a claim at her cubicle at 

approximately 3:00 pm. She stated that the cleaning crew would come in around that time, but 

usually did not vacuum while the staff was interviewing due to noise and dust that the vacuum 

emitted. Appellant explained that the vacuum did not work properly and emitted dust from the 

canister. On this day, the cleaning man vacuumed the area behind her and she immediately felt 

as if she was choking, she began to cough violently, and had to use her rescue pump Albuterol. 

Appellant then went to the bathroom to wash her face but the situation worsened because a 

perfume based product was used to clean the bathroom. She explained that the cleaning crew 

was not supposed to use these products and management had designated a list of approved 

products. Appellant then went back to her desk around 3:30 pm and a fumigator was spraying 

the exterior of her desk for ants, which was not supposed to be done until the staff left the office 

for the day. This caused her chest to tighten and required the use of her inhaler again. Appellant 

stated that on the afternoon of October 31, 2013 she was exposed to chemicals and fumes for 

approximately 30 minutes at her cubicle and in the ladies bathroom. 

Appellant stated that her condition continued to deteriorate as days passed. The earliest 

appointment she could get with her treating physician, Dr. Zevy Landman, a specialist in allergy 

and immunology, was on November 5, 2013. At the appointment, Dr. Landman was concerned 

about her condition and referred her to the emergency room (ER). Appellant sought treatment at 

the ER on that date and was required to stay overnight due to difficulty stabilizing her condition. 

She was treated with a high dosage of steroids and released on November 6, 2013. Appellant 

stated that she had a history of asthma since she was 27 years old, if subjected to dust or any 

chemical smell, but her condition was controlled when she stayed away from dust and used her 

inhaler twice daily for prevention. She was not a smoker. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a November 14, 2014 return to work note for 

asthma exacerbation and a November 22, 2013 Allergen Lab Report. 

By decision dated March 14, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that she sustained an injury because she did not 

submit any medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted 

October 31, 2013 employment exposure. 
3

On April 10, 2014 appellant requested an oral hearing before the Branch of Hearings and 

Review. 

In a February 27, 2014 letter, the employing establishment stated that appellant was 

performing her regular duties as a claims representative on the date of incident. A position 

description was provided. The employing establishment further explained that, on the day in 

question, the cleaning crew began to operate the vacuum in appellant’s area while she was 

working. The employing establishment stated that it did not agree with her allegations because 

she was asked whether she wanted the cleaning crew to continue and she responded yes. It noted 

that the vacuum cleaner did emit an odor on the day that it was being used around appellant’s 

desk and the landlord had since replaced it with a new vacuum. The following day appellant 

became very sensitive to the cleaning materials that were used in the women’s restroom. The 

landlord used the following cleaning supplies: Aroma Shine Glass Cleaner; Lysol Power and 

Fresh Multi-Surface Cleaner, and CLR Bath and Kitchen Cleaner. 

In a November 5, 2013 medical report, Dr. Landman reported that appellant had asthma 

since 1982 which worsened with odors and weather changes. He explained that last Friday her 

office was cleaned with Clorox and her asthma was exacerbated by perfumes and possibly dust. 

Dr. Landman noted that the asthma was not food or animal related. He diagnosed asthma and 

allergic rhinitis due to other allergen and referred her to the ER. 

In a November 5, 2013 ER report, Dr. Thomas Logan, Board-certified in emergency 

medicine, reported that appellant presented to the ER with an asthma attack and complained of 

wheezing, lightheadedness, and chest tightness which began five days ago. Appellant was 

admitted and diagnosed with asthma exacerbation. Review of chest x-rays revealed normal 

findings. Appellant was treated with an IV and steroids and released the following day by 

Dr. Jaynier Moya Hecchevaria, Board-certified in internal medicine. 

In a November 14, 2013 report, Precy Kochiparambath, a physician assistant, reported 

that appellant came in for a follow-up appointment for an episode which began on October 31, 

2013 after she was exposed to dust at work from vacuuming and also exposed to fumigating the 

following day. Lab reports dated November 5 and 14, 2013 were submitted. 

A December 3, 2013 attending physician’s report was also submitted from an unspecified 

allergy and immunology specialist. The signature was not legible. The report noted that 

exposure to dust/vacuum at work on October 31, 2013 resulted in asthma symptoms which 

worsened the next day after fumigating at work. Findings were made of bronchospasm after 

exposure to fumes, noting that appellant had a history of asthma which may have been triggered 

by exposure to fumes. 

A hearing was held on November 12, 2014 where appellant testified that her condition 

was caused by her work exposure. She was instructed that fact of injury had been established 

and advised of the medical evidence needed to establish causal relationship. The record was held 

open for 30 days. 

Following the hearing, appellant submitted a November 24, 2014 medical report from 

Dr. Cheryl Case-Diaz, Board-certified in internal medicine. Dr. Case-Diaz stated that she had 
4

been treating appellant since May 1993 and appellant was known to suffer with asthma. She 

explained that this was a medical condition in which dust or chemical exposure can trigger an 

acute episode. 

By decision dated December 18, 2014, the Branch of Hearings and Review affirmed the 

March 14, 2014 decision, as modified, finding that appellant established a firm medical 

diagnosis. It denied the claim, however, finding that the medical evidence of record failed to 

establish that the diagnosed condition was causally related to the accepted October 31, 2013 

employment exposure. 

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 filed within the applicable time 

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

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

employment injury.2

 These are the essential elements of every compensation claim regardless of 

whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or occupational disease.3

In order to determine whether an employee actually sustained an injury in the 

performance of duty, OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been 

established. Generally, fact of injury consists of two components which must be considered in 

conjunction with one another. The first component to be established is that the employee 

actually experienced the employment incident which is alleged to have occurred.4 The second 

component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and generally can be 

established only by medical evidence. 

To establish a causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant 

disability claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit rationalized 

medical opinion evidence based on a complete factual and medical background, supporting such 

a causal relationship.5 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 claimant. This medical opinion 

must include an accurate history of the employee’s employment injury and must explain how the 

condition is related to the injury. The weight of medical evidence is determined by its reliability, 

 2 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1154 (1989). 

3 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

4 Elaine Pendleton, supra note 2. 

5 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.110(a); John M. Tornello, 35 ECAB 234 (1983). 
5

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 

OWCP accepted that appellant was exposed to chemicals and dust on October 31, 2013 

while in the performance of duty. It denied her claim, however, because it found she had not met 

her burden of proof to establish a causal relationship between the employment exposure and her 

pulmonary condition. The Board finds that the medical evidence of record is insufficient to 

establish that appellant sustained an injury causally related to the October 31, 2013 employment 

exposure. 

In a November 5, 2013 medical report, Dr. Landman reported that appellant had been 

diagnosed with asthma since 1982. The condition worsened with odors and weather changes. 

Dr. Landman explained that on the day in question appellant’s office has been cleaned with 

Clorox. In addition, appellant’s asthma was exacerbated by perfumes and possibly dust. 

Dr. Landman diagnosed asthma and allergic rhinitis due to other allergen and sent appellant to 

the ER. 

The Board finds that the opinion of Dr. Landman is not well rationalized. While 

Dr. Landman provided a sufficient diagnosis of asthma and allergic rhinitis, he failed to explain 

how appellant’s condition has been exacerbated other than generally suggesting perfumes, 

possibly dust, and by noting that her office was cleaned with Clorox. This vague description is 

not entirely consistent with her allegations regarding the history of her injury. For example, 

appellant did not allege that her office was cleaned with Clorox and she alleged that she was 

definitely exposed to dust emitted from a vacuum. Moreover, Clorox is not specifically 

mentioned by the employing establishment when the cleaning materials were identified. 

The need for a medical rationale on causal relationship is particularly important in view 

of appellant’s history of asthma.7

 Without explaining how specific exposures caused or 

contributed to the diagnosed conditions, Dr. Landman’s opinion is insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof.8

 

Dr. Logan and Dr. Hecchevaria’s November 5 and 6, 2013 ER reports are also 

insufficient because they failed to provide any opinion that appellant’s pulmonary condition was 

caused by her work.9

 Without medical reasoning explaining how appellant’s employment 

 6 James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991). 

7 W.L., Docket No. 13-1727 (issued February 4, 2014). 

8 See L.M., Docket No. 14-973 (issued August 25, 2014); R.G., Docket No. 14-113 (issued April 25, 2014); K.M., 

Docket No. 13-1459 (issued December 5, 2013); A.J., Docket No. 12-548 (issued November 16, 2012). 

9 Franklin D. Haislah, 52 ECAB 457 (2001) (medical reports not containing rationale on causal relationship are 

entitled to little probative value); Jimmie H. Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001). 
6

exposure might have caused or exacerbated her asthma, the ER reports are insufficient to meet 

her burden of proof.10

Dr. Case-Diaz’ November 24, 2014 report is also insufficient because she provided no 

diagnosis which could be related to an incident on October 31, 2013.11 Rather, she generally 

reported that appellant was known to suffer from asthma which could be triggered by dust or 

chemical exposure. Without a diagnosis and explanation on causation, Dr. Case-Diaz’ does not 

support that employment exposure caused an injury. Her report is not probative because it lacks 

a clear diagnosis and fails to adequately explain the cause of appellant’s condition.12 

The remaining medical evidence is also insufficient. Appellant submitted documents that 

were illegibly signed or did not contain signatures. The author of those papers could not be 

determined. Consequently, it cannot be discerned whether a physician signed or authored the 

documents.13 Mr. Kochiparambath’s November 14, 2013 report is also insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim because the author was not a physician. Registered nurses, physical therapists, 

and physician assistants, are not considered physicians as defined under FECA and their medical 

opinions are of no probative value.14 

The Board finds that the medical evidence does not establish that appellant’s pulmonary 

condition is causally related to her October 31, 2013 employment exposure. An award of 

compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture, or speculation. Neither the fact that 

appellant’s condition became apparent during a period of employment nor the belief that her 

condition was caused, precipitated, or aggravated by her employment is sufficient to establish 

causal relationship.15 

In the instant case, the record lacks rationalized medical evidence establishing a causal 

relationship between the accepted October 31, 2013 employment exposure and appellant’s 

pulmonary condition. Thus, appellant has failed to meet her burden of proof.16 She 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. 

 10 C.B., Docket No. 08-1583 (issued December 9, 2008). 

11 H.A., Docket No. 13-1265 (issued November 4, 2013). 

12 Id.

13 See also Sheila A. Johnson, 46 ECAB 323, 327 (1994); see Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988). 

14 5 U.S.C. § 8102(2) of FECA provides as follows: (2) physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical 

psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined 

by State law. FECA provides that the term “physician” includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical 

psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined 

by State law. See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238 (2005). 

15 See Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997). 

16 Supra note 7. 
7

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish an injury in 

the performance of duty on October 31, 2013, as alleged. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 18, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 10, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board