United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.L., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, TEST & 

EVALUATION COMMAND, WHITE SANDS 

MISSILE RANGE, NM, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0946 

Issued: October 19, 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 March 16, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 8, 2015 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.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish that she developed a 

pulmonary condition causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The Board notes that, following the issuance of the January 8, 2015 OWCP decision, appellant submitted new 

evidence. The Board is precluded from reviewing evidence which was not before OWCP at the time it issued its 

final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

On appeal, appellant contends that four different military and civilian doctors concurred 

that the constant exposure of mold, asbestos, and fungi in her work building caused her lung 

disease. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 24, 2014 appellant, a 49-year-old information technology (IT) specialist, filed 

an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained a pulmonary condition 

due to factors of her federal employment. She alleged that the air in her work building was 

contaminated and that this caused her stress, breathing problems, and chest pain. Appellant 

reported that she first became aware of her condition and attributed it to her federal employment 

on December 17, 2013. 

Appellant submitted a position description and a December 10, 2013 report from 

Dr. Cesar Vivanco, a Board-certified oncologist, who reported that appellant suffered from 

“severe respiratory problems contracted in White Sands Missile Range.” Dr. Vivanco noted that 

appellant experienced a back injury at work that kept her away for several months and after she 

returned to work, she developed several physical health problems. He opined that appellant’s 

respiratory problems, constant headaches, upset stomach, chest pain, insomnia, uncontrolled high 

blood pressure, low energy, and eating disorders were consequences of the high level of stress 

she was having at work. Dr. Vivanco recommended she stop all stressful activities immediately 

and indicated that if appellant’s symptoms continued to worsen he would have to consider 

hospitalization. 

In a February 11, 2014 letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of her claim 

and afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence and respond to its inquiries. 

Appellant submitted narrative statements dated March 4 and June 26, 2014, an 

environmental report of her work building, and photographs in support of her claim. She also 

submitted a November 15, 2010 witness statement from her coworker, R.L., who indicated that 

he noticed her breathing issues when she was required to have prolonged stays within the work 

building and that she started feeling poorly with a shortness of breath and coughing. 

By decision dated January 8, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

medical evidence she submitted failed to establish a causal relationship between her pulmonary 

condition and factors of her federal employment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3

 has the burden of establishing the essential 

elements of his or her claim, including the fact that he or she 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, and that an injury4

 was sustained in the performance of duty. These 

                                                             3

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4

 OWCP regulations define an occupational disease or illness as a condition produced by the work environment 

over a period longer than a single workday or shift. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q). 
3

are the essential elements of each compensation claim, regardless of whether the claim is 

predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.5

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in a claim for an 

occupational disease claim, an employee must submit the following: (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 compensation is claimed; and (3) medical 

evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors 

identified by the employee.6

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

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

be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, 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.7

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish that she 

developed a pulmonary condition causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

Appellant identified the factors of employment that she believed caused her pulmonary 

condition, specifically breathing in contaminated air at work, which OWCP accepted as factual. 

However, in order to establish a claim that she sustained an employment-related injury, she must 

also submit rationalized medical evidence which explains how her employment caused or 

aggravated her medical condition.8

In his December 10, 2013 report, Dr. Vivanco noted that appellant suffered from “severe 

respiratory problems contracted in White Sands Missile Range.” He opined that her respiratory 

problems, constant headaches, upset stomach, chest pain, insomnia, uncontrolled high blood 

pressure, low energy, and eating disorders were all consequences of the high level of stress she 

was experiencing at work. Dr. Vivanco recommended that appellant stop all stressful activities 

immediately and that if her symptoms worsened he would have to consider hospitalization. The 

Board finds that Dr. Vivanco failed to provide a rationalized opinion to explain how the alleged 

contaminated air caused or aggravated her pulmonary condition or any other condition. 

Dr. Vivanco noted that appellant’s condition occurred while she was at work, but such 

                                                             5 See O.W., Docket No. 09-2110 (issued April 22, 2010); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 

6 See D.R., Docket No. 09-1723 (issued May 20, 2010). See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); 

Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

7 See O.W., supra note 5. 

8 See A.C., Docket No. 08-1453 (issued November 18, 2008); Donald W. Wenzel, 56 ECAB 390 (2005); Leslie C. 

Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000). 
4

generalized statements do not establish causal relationship because they merely repeat 

appellant’s allegations and are unsupported by adequate medical rationale explaining how her 

physical activity at work actually caused or aggravated the diagnosed conditions.9

 The Board 

has held that the mere fact that a condition manifests itself during a period of employment does 

not raise an inference that there is a causal relationship between the two.10 Lacking thorough 

medical rationale on the issue of causal relationship, the Board finds that Dr. Vivanco’s report is 

insufficient to establish that appellant sustained an employment-related injury. 

Appellant further submitted a position description, her own narrative statements, an 

environmental report, photographs, and a witness statement from her coworker, R.L. These 

documents are not medical evidence because they do not contain rationale by a physician relating 

appellant’s disability to her employment.11 As such, the Board finds that appellant did not meet 

her burden of proof with these submissions. 

On appeal, appellant submitted new evidence and contends that four different military 

and civilian doctors concurred that the constant exposure of mold, asbestos, and fungi in her 

work building caused her lung disease. As noted,12 however, the Board is precluded from 

reviewing evidence which was not before OWCP at the time it issued its final decision.13

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 has not met her burden of proof to establish that she 

developed a pulmonary condition causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

                                                             9 See K.W., Docket No. 10-98 (issued September 10, 2010). 

10 See Joe T. Williams, 44 ECAB 518, 521 (1993). 

11 See 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). Section 8101(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.” See also Paul Foster, 56 ECAB 208, 212 n.12 (2004); Joseph N. 

Fassi, 42 ECAB 677 (1991); Barbara J. Williams, 40 ECAB 649 (1989). 

12 Supra note 2. 

13 See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 8, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 19, 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