United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

N.U., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

New York, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1573 

Issued: July 29, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas S. Harkins, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 2, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a May 15, 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 has met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained a 

neck or lower back condition in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This is the second appeal before the Board. On October 12, 2011 appellant, then a 

51-year-old mail carrier, filed a Form CA-2a claim for recurrence of disability, alleging that he 

sustained a recurrence of disability on October 8, 2011 due to a January 28, 2011 work injury. In 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

his recurrence claim, he alleged that he sustained pain up and down his arms, spine, and back 

while he was casing mail. Appellant stopped work on October 8, 2011.2 

By letter dated December 27, 2011, OWCP advised appellant that his case would be 

converted to a claim for a traumatic injury given the description provided by him on the Form 

CA-2a constituted a new injury. In a January 27, 2012 decision, it denied his claim that he 

sustained a medical condition in the performance of duty. Regarding the reason for the denial, 

OWCP stated that appellant had not established the factual component of his claim. It stated, 

“Specifically your case is denied because the evidence is not sufficient to establish that the 

event(s) occurred as you described. The reason for this finding is that you did not submit a 

statement describing in detail how your injury occurred. It is unclear what workplace incident 

caused your claimed condition.” Appellant requested reconsideration. 

In a January 16, 2012 report, Dr. Sebastian Lattuga, Board-certified in orthopedic 

surgery, reported that appellant had daily, constant, and persistent complaints of neck, back, arm, 

and leg pain with upper and lower extremity radiation and associated numbness, tingling, and 

dysesthesias noting these complaints stemmed from a work-related head, neck, and back injury 

he sustained on January 28, 2011. He advised that appellant had been severely symptomatic 

since the accident and rated the pain as an eight on a scale of 1 to 10. Appellant related that the 

pain was aggravated by daily activities such as lifting, carrying, bending, standing/sitting for 

prolonged periods of time, and ascending/descending stairs. Dr. Lattuga diagnosed cervical 

spine sprain, radiculopathy, and a herniated nucleus pulposus. He prescribed continued 

chiropractic care and physical therapy and discussed possible surgical intervention with 

appellant. 

Appellant submitted a February 20, 2012 statement in which he asserted that he returned 

to limited-duty work in September 2011. He noted that, due to the damaged disc in his lower 

back, the sitting and standing required by this job was causing the disc in his back to rub against 

the spine. Appellant further stated that reaching up and down to sort and case mail made his 

neck hurt and sent sharp pains to his head. 

In a May 31, 2012 decision, OWCP affirmed its January 27, 2012 decision, noting, “Your 

statement does not support that you suffered a head, back, or neck condition due to a specific 

work incident on October 8, 2011.... While you did provide a new statement, you still have not 

described a specific work incident on October 8, 2011. Nor does the medical evidence of file 

diagnose a condition in connection with the claimed incident. As such, it cannot be established 

that an incident occurred at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.” Appellant again 

requested reconsideration. 

In a December 6, 2012 statement, appellant indicated that his job required him to sort and 

case mail before delivery. He stated that these tasks required him to stand, sit, reach up, bend 

down, reach up from side to side, and look up and down constantly. Appellant complained that 

because of the previously damaged disc in his lower back and neck, performing these activities 

 2

 At the time of his work stoppage, appellant was working four hours a day in a limited-duty job after he sustained 

back, neck, and upper extremity injuries at work on January 28, 2011, case file number xxxxxx561, when snow fell 

on him and knocked him to the ground. 
3

caused the discs in his back and neck to rub against the spinal cord. He asserted that reaching up 

and down to sort and case the mail made his neck hurt and sent sharp pains to his head. 

Appellant stated that on October 8, 2011 he decided that he could not continue to perform such 

work and that his attending physician indicated that he should stop work. 

In an August 12, 2013 decision, OWCP affirmed its May 31, 2012 decision denying 

appellant’s claim for a work-related injury. It cited Board precedent stating that an employee has 

not met his or her burden of proof to establish a work-related condition where there are such 

inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt upon the validity of the claim. OWCP 

stated, “The evidence is not sufficient to modify the decision dated May 31, 2012 because your 

statement of December 6, 2012 differs from the original statement surrounding the circumstances 

of your claim dated February 20, 2012 therefore there is doubt surrounding the circumstances 

surrounding your claim.” 

In an April 18, 2014 decision,3

 the Board set aside OWCP’s August 12, 2013 decision, 

finding that it improperly denied appellant’s claim finding that he did not establish the factual 

component of his claim for a work-related condition. The Board further found that, although 

appellant initially filed his claim on an inappropriate claim form, one for a recurrence of 

disability, this was not a valid basis for the denial of his claim. The Board noted that, while 

OWCP had converted the claim to one for traumatic injury, contrary to OWCP’s assertions, 

appellant consistently submitted statements in which he claimed that he sustained an 

occupational disease due to the duties he performed over an extended period after returning to 

limited-duty work in September 2011. The Board found that appellant did in fact establish the 

above-described work factors in connection with a claim for a work-related occupational disease 

and that, as OWCP denied appellant’s claim on a factual basis, it failed to adequately evaluate 

the medical evidence in light of these established work factors. The Board therefore remanded 

the case to OWCP to consider the medical evidence and determine whether appellant had 

sustained an occupational disease due to the accepted work factors. The complete facts of this 

case are set forth in the Board’s April 18, 2014 decision and are incorporated herein by 

reference. 

By decision dated May 15, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that he failed to 

submit sufficient medical evidence in support of his claim that he sustained a neck or lower back 

injury in the performance of duty on October 8, 2011. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing that 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 an injury was sustained 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 essential elements of each and 

 3

 Docket No. 14-94 (issued April 18, 2014). 

4 Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 
4

every 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 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; (2) a factual 

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

or occurrence of the disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that 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. 

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is usually rationalized medical 

evidence. Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a 

physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship between the 

claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors. 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.6

Appellant has the burden of establishing by the weight of the substantial, reliable, and 

probative evidence, a causal relationship between his claimed lower back and neck conditions and 

his federal employment. This burden includes providing medical evidence from a physician who 

concludes that the disabling condition is causally related to employment factors and supports that 

conclusion with sound medical reasoning.7

ANALYSIS 

In the instant case, appellant has failed to submit any medical opinion containing a 

rationalized, probative report which relates his claimed neck and lower back conditions to the 

factors of his employment he alleges caused the progression of his condition. For this reason, he 

has not discharged his burden of proof to establish his claim that these conditions were sustained 

as an occupational disease in the performance of duty. 

Dr. Lattuga’s January 16, 2012 report noted appellant’s complaints of neck and upper and 

lower extremity pain and presented diagnoses of cervical spine sprain, radiculopathy, and 

herniated nucleus pulposus and only generally attributed these conditions to employment factors. 

He advised that appellant had been severely symptomatic since his January 28, 2011 accident 

and rated his pain as an eight on a scale of 1 to 10. Dr. Lattuga related that appellant had daily, 

constant, and persistent complaints of neck, back, arm, and leg pain with upper and lower 

extremity radiation and associated numbness, tingling, and dysesthesias. Appellant asserted that 

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

6 Id.

7 See Nicolea Bruso, 33 ECAB 1138, 1140 (1982). 
5

the pain was aggravated by daily activities such as lifting, carrying, bending, standing/sitting for 

prolonged periods of time, and ascending/descending stairs. 

Dr. Lattuga’s report did not provide a probative, rationalized medical opinion that the 

claimed conditions or disability were causally related to employment factors. His opinion on 

causal relationship is of limited probative value as it does not contain any medical rationale as to 

how or why appellant’s claimed neck and lower back conditions were currently affected by or 

related to factors of employment.8

 Dr. Lattuga did not sufficiently describe appellant’s job duties 

or explain the medical process through which such duties would have been sufficient to cause the 

claimed conditions. His opinion is of limited probative value as it does not contain any medical 

rationale explaining how appellant’s job duties physiologically caused the diagnosed neck and 

lower back conditions over a period of exposure to those duties. Dr. Lattuga’s January 16, 2012 

report thus did not constitute adequate medical evidence to establish that appellant’s claimed 

neck and lower back conditions were causally related to his employment. 

OWCP advised appellant of the evidence required to establish his claim. However, 

appellant failed to submit such evidence. Consequently, he has not met his burden of proof to 

establish that his claimed neck and lower back conditions were causally related to his 

employment. 

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 failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that his 

claimed neck and lower back conditions were sustained in the performance of duty. 

 8 William C. Thomas, 45 ECAB 591 (1994). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 15, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 29, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board