United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

V.V., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

New York, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-169 

Issued: February 27, 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 HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 8, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 17, 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 December 14, 2013. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 20, 2013 appellant, then a 52-year-old clerk, filed a traumatic injury claim 

alleging that on December 14, 2013 he sustained lower back strain and pain after attempting to 

lift a tray of letters. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

By report dated December 14, 2013, Dr. Ali E. Guy, Board-certified in physical medicine 

and rehabilitation, stated that appellant was totally disabled from that date until his next 

evaluation in four to six weeks. He continued to state that appellant was totally disabled in a 

letter dated January 14, 2014. 

In notes dated January 8, 2014, a nurse noted that appellant had a prior case for workers’ 

compensation related to his back and had been on limited duty for approximately four years as a 

result of the prior claim.2

 She noted that appellant had filed for both a recurrence and for a new 

traumatic injury as he was unsure which form to file. 

In an attending physician’s report dated January 13, 2014, Dr. Guy stated that appellant 

had reinjured his back on December 14, 2013. He diagnosed appellant with displacement of an 

unspecified lumbar disc and checked a box indicating that appellant’s condition resulted from an 

employment activity. 

By letter dated January 14, 2014, OWCP informed appellant of the evidence needed to 

support his claim and noted that his claim had been reopened because it had received an 

indication that he had not yet returned to work in a full-time capacity. It afforded him 30 days to 

submit additional evidence. 

By decision dated February 14, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation 

because the medical evidence was insufficient to support that his diagnosed condition was 

causally related to the incident of December 14, 2013. It noted that no action would be taken on 

his separate claim for a recurrence based on the same event, as his description of the incident 

indicated that it was a new traumatic injury. 

On February 26, 2014 appellant claimed compensation for leave without pay between 

January 29 and February 21, 2014. On March 11, 2014 OWCP informed appellant that his claim 

for compensation was not payable because it had been denied by decision dated 

February 14, 2014. 

On March 12, 2014 appellant requested a review of the written record before OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review. 

In a report dated March 8, 2014, Dr. Guy diagnosed appellant with L1-L2 disc herniation; 

a L2-L3 disc bulge; an L3-L4 lateral disc herniation contacting the exiting L3 nerve root; an L4-

L5 disc bulge indenting the ventral thecal sac; an L5-S1 disc herniation impinging the right S1 

nerve root; right L4 through S1 radiculopathy; and traumatic myofascial pain syndrome. He 

noted, “The patient had a prior preexisting injury dating to January 27, 2010 with multiple disc 

herniations and he had another episode of an acute exacerbation while working at the job 

bending, lifting mail he reinjured his back that was [sic] on December 14, 2013. Therefore, 

[appellant] sustained an exacerbation of his prior preexisting multiple lumbar disc herniations 

with no new levels of injuries.” Dr. Guy noted that appellant had been under his care since 

February 3, 2010, and that appellant returned to work on light duty on April 23, 2012. He further 

 2

 OWCP accepted that appellant had a work-related sprain and strain of the lumbar region on April 23, 2012 

under claim number xxxxxx976. 
3

noted that appellant had received continuous physical therapy treatments. Dr. Guy stated that 

electromyographic studies of appellant’s lower extremities revealed evidence of right L4 through 

S1 radiculopathy. 

By decision dated September 17, 2014, the hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

February 14, 2014 decision. She noted that Dr. Guy had not explained how any findings support 

a change in appellant’s conditions as a result of the claimed event, but had only claimed that 

appellant had an exacerbation of conditions he had all along. The hearing representative further 

noted that while Dr. Guy stated that appellant was in need of treatment for pain and muscle 

spasm, review of the prior claim indicated that appellant had been under treatment for these 

symptoms prior to the claimed event. 

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 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 and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the 

employment injury.4 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.5

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty it must first be determined whether a fact of injury has been established.6 

First, the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually 

experienced the employment incident at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.7 Second, the 

employee must submit sufficient evidence, generally only in the form of medical evidence, to 

establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.8

The claimant has the burden of establishing by the weight of reliable, probative and 

substantial evidence that the condition for which compensation is sought is causally related to a 

specific employment incident or to specific conditions of employment.9 An award of 

compensation may not be based on appellant’s belief of causal relationship. Neither the mere 

fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment nor the belief that 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

4 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364, 366 (2006). 

5 S.P., 59 ECAB 184, 188 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153, 157 (1989). 

6 B.F., Docket No. 09-60 (issued March 17, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, supra note 4. 

7 D.B., 58 ECAB 464, 466 (2007); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137, 140 (2005). 

8 C.B., Docket No. 08-1583 (issued December 9, 2008); D.G., 59 ECAB 734, 737 (2008); Bonnie A. Contreras, 

supra note 4. 

9 Roma A. Mortenson-Kindschi, 57 ECAB 418, 428 n.37 (2006); Katherine J. Friday, 47 ECAB 591, 594 (1996). 
4

the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or incidents is 

sufficient to establish a causal relationship.10

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.11 Rationalized medical 

opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on 

whether there is a causal relationship between the employee’s diagnosed condition and 

compensable employment factors.12 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.13

ANALYSIS 

OWCP found and the Board agrees that the December 14, 2013 lifting incident occurred. 

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

establish that this incident caused a medical condition. 

Appellant has a history of lumbar conditions related to work. On April 23, 2012 OWCP 

accepted that appellant sustained sprain and strain to the lumbar region as a result of a traumatic 

event at work, under claim number xxxxxx976. In a report dated March 8, 2014, Dr. Guy stated, 

“The patient had a prior preexisting injury dating January 27, 2010 with multiple disc herniations 

and he had another episode of an acute exacerbation while working at the job bending, lifting 

mail he reinjured his back that was on December 14, 2013. Therefore, he sustained an 

exacerbation of his prior preexisting multiple lumbar disc herniations with no new levels of 

injuries.” Dr. Guy noted that appellant had been under his care since February 3, 2010, and that 

appellant returned to work on light duty on April 23, 2012. He further noted that appellant had 

received continuous physical therapy treatments. Dr. Guy stated that electromyographic studies 

of appellant’s lower extremities revealed evidence of right L4 through S1 radiculopathy. 

While Dr. Guy provided an opinion regarding the causal relationship between the 

traumatic incident of December 14, 2013 and appellant’s present conditions, he did not explain 

the mechanics of the incident or establish causal relationship between the incident and the injury. 

He also did not explain how appellant’s condition had worsened, and noted that appellant had not 

sustained any new injuries. There is no objective evidence in Dr. Guy’s March 8, 2014 report 

supporting an aggravation of appellant’s conditions. Rather, Dr. Guy merely notes that appellant 

reported increased symptoms, while he had already been under treatment for the same symptoms 

under another claim. 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 

 10 P.K., Docket No. 08-2551 (issued June 2, 2009); Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215, 218 (1997). 

11 Y.J., Docket No. 08-1167 (issued October 7, 2008); A.D., 58 ECAB 149, 155-56 (2006); D’Wayne Avila, 57 

ECAB 642, 649 (2006). 

12 J.J., Docket No. 09-27 (issued February 10, 2009); Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379, 384 (2006). 

13 I.J., 59 ECAB 408, 415 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989). 
5

claimed work event caused or aggravated the claimed condition.14 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 a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty on December 14, 2013. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 17, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 27, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

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