United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.B., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISIONS, Petersburg, VA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-236 

Issued: March 14, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Stephen D. Scavuzzo, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 12, 2013 appellant, through his attorney, filed a timely appeal from a 

May 15, 2013 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) 

denying his occupational disease claim. 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 sustained a back condition causally related to factors of his 

federal employment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 19, 2011 appellant, then a 46-year-old landscape supervisor, filed an 

occupational disease claim alleging that he sustained lumbar spondylosis and stenosis causally 

related to factors of his federal employment. He indicated that he could no longer perform his 

work duties of lifting up to 100 pounds, climbing, planting, kneeling, squatting, searching 

inmates and responding to emergencies. 

In a January 23, 2012 disability certificate, Dr. David S. Geckle, a Board-certified 

neurosurgeon, asserted that appellant was totally disabled from January 30 through 

April 1, 2012. 

By letter dated June 29, 2012, OWCP requested additional factual and medical 

information from appellant, including a detailed report from his attending physician addressing 

the causal relationship between any diagnosed condition and the work duties to which he 

attributed his condition. 

In a report dated January 23, 2012, Dr. Geckle related that appellant had a history of 

lumbar spondylosis. Over the past few months, he experienced “more leg symptomatology with 

radiation of the pain down the posterolateral leg to the knee with burning and tingling sensation 

intermittently into the left foot.” Dr. Geckle diagnosed lumbosacral spondylosis. In a progress 

report dated March 9, 2012, he provided findings on examination and diagnosed lumbosacral 

spondylosis. 

On July 6, 2012 Dr. Geckle evaluated appellant for neck pain. He diagnosed cervical 

spondylosis. Dr. Geckle noted that appellant currently had no significant radiculopathy due to 

lumbar spondylosis and had no work limitations. 

In a report dated July 9, 2012, Dr. Geckle indicated that he had treated appellant for a 

back condition since 2006. He diagnosed lumbar spondylosis with current symptoms of “low 

back pain that radiates into the left paraspinous musculature. There is no significant radiation of 

pain to the buttock or down the legs at the present time.” Dr. Geckle related that a magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan study revealed disc degeneration and a disc bulge at L4-5 and 

mild degeneration at L5-S1. He indicated that appellant attributed the onset of his symptoms to 

lifting a power washer in 2000 while at work. Dr. Geckle related, “[Appellant’s] work injury of 

2000 is related to his chronic ongoing low back issues. These have been managed well 

medically over a protracted period of time. Appellant suffers occasional exacerbations of 

symptoms that require ongoing medical treatments.” 

The record reflects that appellant filed a claim for an August 24, 2000 employment 

injury. 

In response to OWCP’s request for additional information, in a statement dated July 9, 

2012, appellant related that his injury initially occurred on August 24, 2000 and that he reinjured 

his back on October 9, 2001 and March 8, 2006. He maintained that he had constant discomfort 

in his low back that now spread down his left leg. Appellant asserted that operating machinery 

while sitting or driving long distances, bending and standing aggravated his condition. He 
3

described in detail the work duties that he believed contributed to his condition, including lifting 

bags, searching inmates, emergency response, walking, loading machinery, snow removal and 

climbing stairs. 

By decision dated October 5, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s claim on the grounds that 

he did not establish a medical condition causally related to the accepted factors of employment. 

On November 5, 2012 appellant, through his attorney, requested an oral hearing before an 

OWCP hearing representative. On February 28, 2013 his attorney requested a review of the 

written record in lieu of an oral hearing. 

In a report dated February 4, 2013, Dr. Geckle indicated that he initially evaluated 

appellant for a low back condition he sustained in 2000 lifting a power washer at work. He 

diagnosed lumbar spondylosis and noted that it was “a degenerative condition of his spine that 

has been progressively worsening over the years since his injury.” Dr. Geckle stated, “It is my 

opinion that the lifting of the power washer did significantly impact his lower back structurally 

and has contributed to the progressive decline in his functioning due to his degenerative issues. 

The lower back injury has left him with chronic problems with lifting and bending.” Dr. Geckle 

found that appellant had permanent disability and required some periodic work modifications 

when his symptoms increased. He further related that appellant had degenerative changes of the 

cervical spine not related to his 2000 injury but causing limitations. 

By decision dated May 15, 2013, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

October 5, 2012 decision. She found that the medical evidence was insufficient to show that he 

sustained a back condition due to the identified work factors. The hearing representative 

instructed appellant that if he believed that a work incident in 2000 caused his condition he 

should file either an injury claim or a notice of recurrence of disability related to that incident. 

On appeal appellant’s attorney contends that OWCP accepted that he had a back 

condition as the result of a March 8, 2006 work injury but that the hearing representative did not 

discuss this injury in her decision. He further alleges that Dr. Geckle’s February 4, 2013 report 

establishes that appellant had an employment-related back condition. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2

 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 

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
4

employment injury.3 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.4

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing the 

presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed;5

 (2) a 

factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the 

presence or occurrence of the disease or condition;6

 and (3) medical evidence establishing the 

employment factors identified by the claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for 

which compensation is claimed or, stated differently, medical evidence establishing that the 

diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant.7

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship generally is rationalized 

medical opinion evidence. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and 

medical background of the claimant,8 must be one of reasonable medical certainty9 explaining 

the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment 

factors identified by the claimant.10

ANALYSIS 

Appellant attributed his low back condition to the performance of work duties, including 

lifting bags, loading equipment, walking, climbing stairs, snow removal and responding to 

emergencies in the course of his federal employment. OWCP accepted the occurrence of the 

claimed employment factors. The issue, therefore, is whether the medical evidence establishes a 

causal relationship between the claimed conditions and the identified employment factors. 

In a report dated January 23, 2012, Dr. Geckle discussed his treatment of appellant for 

lumbar spondylosis and his complaints of pain over the past few months radiating from the left 

leg into the left foot. He diagnosed lumbosacral spondylosis. In a disability certificate dated 

January 23, 2012, Dr. Geckle found that appellant was disabled from employment. On March 9, 

2012 he discussed examination findings and diagnosed lumbosacral spondylosis. In a report 

dated July 6, 2012, Dr. Geckle discussed appellant’s symptoms of neck pain and diagnosed 

cervical spondylosis. He found no radiation from the lumbar spondylosis and no work 

restrictions. In these reports, however, Dr. Geckle did not address causation. Medical evidence 

 3 Tracey P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

4 See Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 

5 Michael R. Shaffer, 55 ECAB 386 (2004). 

6 Marlon Vera, 54 ECAB 834 (2003); Roger Williams, 52 ECAB 468 (2001). 

7 Beverly A. Spencer, 55 ECAB 501 (2004). 

8 Tomas Martinez, 54 ECAB 623 (2003); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001). 

9 John W. Montoya, 54 ECAB 306 (2003). 

10 Judy C. Rogers, 54 ECAB 693 (2003). 
5

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

probative value on the issue of causal relationship.11 

On July 9, 2012 Dr. Geckle diagnosed lumbar spondylosis with pain radiating to the left 

paraspinous musculature. He noted that appellant asserted that his symptoms began in 2000 after 

he lifted a power washer at work. Dr. Geckle found that appellant’s low back problems resulted 

from his 2000 injury at work lifting a power washer and indicated that he periodically 

experienced exacerbations of symptoms. As he attributed appellant’s condition to lifting a power 

washer in 2000 rather than the work duties identified by appellant in his December 2011 

occupational disease claim, his opinion is of diminished probative value. 

In a report dated February 4, 2013, Dr. Geckle related that he began treating appellant in 

2000 after he injured his low back at work lifting a power washer. He diagnosed progressively 

worsening lumbar spondylosis. Dr. Geckle found that lifting a power washer caused structural 

changes in appellant’s back and “contributed to the progressive decline in his functioning due to 

his degenerative issues.” He determined that appellant required intermittent work limitations due 

to his symptoms. Again, however, as Dr. Geckle attributed appellant’s condition to a 2000 

injury, his opinion is of diminished probative value. In the absence of rationalized medical 

evidence relating a diagnosed condition to the work factors identified by appellant as causing his 

condition, appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish his December 19, 2011 

occupational disease claim.12

On appeal appellant’s attorney asserts that OWCP’s hearing representative should have 

discussed appellant’s March 8, 2006 work injury and resulting low back condition. The issue, 

however, is whether appellant has established a back condition caused or aggravated by the work 

factors identified in his December 2011 occupational disease claim. 

Counsel further alleges that Dr. Geckle’s February 4, 2013 report establishes that 

appellant had an employment-related back condition. As discussed, however, Dr. Geckle did not 

relate a diagnosed condition to the work factors identified by appellant as causing his condition, 

and thus his opinion is of diminished probative value.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 and 

20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established that he sustained a back condition 

causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

 11 S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009); Conard Hightower, 54 ECAB 796 (2003). 

12 See B.E., Docket No. 14-63 (issued December 16, 2013). 

13 Id. 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 15, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 14, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board