United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.R., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL 

CENTER, Grand Island, NE, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1514 

Issued: November 2, 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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 2, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 9, 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 his burden of proof to establish that he sustained a 

lower back injury causally related to factors of his employment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence following the March 9, 2015 decision. Since the 

Board’s jurisdiction is limited to evidence that was before OWCP at the time it issued its final decision, the Board 

may not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 

126 (2005). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 27, 2015 appellant, then a 53-year-old biomedical equipment support 

specialist, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed lower 

back injuries as a result of repetitively lifting objects, bending over to lift objects, and overhead 

lifting at work. He first became aware of his condition on February 17, 2014 and realized that it 

resulted from his employment on November 12, 2014.3 The record does not indicate whether 

appellant stopped work. 

In a letter dated January 30, 2015, OWCP informed appellant that no evidence was 

received to establish his claim. It requested that he provide a detailed description of how the 

alleged injury occurred and respond to specific questions in order to substantiate the factual 

elements of his claim. OWCP also advised appellant to submit a detailed report from his treating 

physician which included a history of how the claimed injury occurred, a medical diagnosis, and 

an opinion on how the condition was causally related to the alleged injury. 

OWCP issued a similar letter dated January 30, 2015 to the employing establishment 

requesting that a knowledgeable supervisor comment on the accuracy of appellant’s statements 

and clarify the physical requirements of appellant’s job. 

The employing establishment provided a position description for a biomedical equipment 

support specialist. The physical demands of the job included long periods of standing, recurring 

bending, crouching, stretching, climbing, and lifting of light to moderately heavy items weighing 

less than 50 pounds. 

In a February 19, 2015 statement, James M. Mazurek, appellant’s supervisor, explained 

that he was appellant’s supervisor but was remote to the location. He confirmed that appellant’s 

description about bending, lifting, and doing overhead work was accurate. Mr. Mazurek 

explained that in December 2014 appellant informed him that he was having back issues while 

doing his job and that he thought the pain was a continuation of a February 7, 2014 injury he 

sustained when he installed a television on a ceiling mounted pole. He advised appellant not to 

lift anything at work and to go to the doctor. Mr. Mazurek stated that appellant called him after 

several doctor appointments to inform him that the continued pain may be due to the previous 

February 2014 injury. He pointed out that appellant’s job position required recurring lifting of 

light to moderately heavy items. Mr. Mazurek noted that the television weighed 11 pounds and 

pointed out that appellant installed approximately 100 television sets over the last four years. He 

further related that appellant installed many different pieces of medical equipment and repaired 

items overhead, which required lifting and bending. 

In a decision dated March 9, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding insufficient 

evidence to establish fact of injury as he had not established the factual component, i.e., that “the 

injury and/or event(s) occurred.” 

 3

 The record reveals that appellant has a previously accepted occupational disease claim (File No. xxxxxx353) 

and accepted traumatic injury claims i.e., File No. xxxxxx671 on December 14, 2007 and File No. xxxxxx192 on 

February 14, 2014. The exact nature of these claims is not specified in this record. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial 

evidence4 including that he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty and that any 

specific condition or disability for work for which he or she claims compensation is causally 

related to that employment injury.5

 In an occupational disease claim, appellant’s burden requires 

submission of 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 opinion evidence.7

 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.8

 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that he sustained a lower back injury as a result of his employment as a 

biomedical equipment support specialist, which required repetitively lifting objects, bending over 

to lift objects, and overhead lifting at work. OWCP denied his claim finding that he did not 

establish the alleged employment factors. The Board finds that the evidence submitted is 

sufficient to establish that appellant’s duties as a biomedical equipment support specialist 

involved repetitively lifting objects at work. 

OWCP determined that appellant did not establish fact of injury because he did not 

provide information that was sufficient to establish his work factors nor did he respond to the 

questionnaire to establish a factual basis for his claim. The Board finds, however, that the record 

establishes that appellant’s duties involved repetitively lifting objects, including overhead lifting, 

at work, while installing medical equipment. A position description listed the physical demands 

of appellant’s job as including long periods of standing, recurring bending, crouching, stretching, 

climbing, and lifting light to moderately heavy items. As well, Mr. Mazurek, appellant’s 

supervisor, reported in a February 19, 2015 statement that appellant correctly described his job as 

including lifting, bending, and doing overhead work. As an example of appellant’s work duties, 

 4 J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 58 (1968). 

5 M.M., Docket No. 08-1510 (issued November 25, 2010); G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

6 R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008); Ernest St. Pierre, 51 ECAB 623 (2000). 

7 I.R., Docket No. 09-1229 (issued February 24, 2010); D.I., 59 ECAB 158 (2007). 

8

 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 465 (2005). 
4

he related that appellant installed over 100 television sets over the past four years. Appellant has 

not provided any inconsistent statements regarding his work duties as to cast serious doubt on his 

version of his work duties. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the Board finds that 

appellant has established factors of his employment. 

The Board further finds, however, that appellant did not submit any medical evidence to 

establish that he sustained a back injury causally related to factors of his employment. The 

record does not contain any medical evidence from a physician which included a history of how 

the claimed injury occurred, a diagnosis, and an opinion on how the condition was causally 

related to the alleged injury. The Board finds, therefore, that appellant has not met his burden of 

proof to establish that he sustained a back injury as a result of factors of his employment. 

On appeal, appellant stated that he filled out an occupational disease form and was unsure 

about what other evidence was needed in order for OWCP to accept his claim. As previously 

noted, an employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish that he or 

she sustained an injury in the performance of duty and that any specific condition or disability 

for work for which he or she claims compensation is causally related to that employment injury.9

 

Because appellant has not submitted any medical evidence to establish that he sustained a back 

injury as a result of his employment, the Board finds that he has failed to establish his 

occupational disease claim. 

Appellant may submit additional evidence, together with a written request for 

reconsideration, to OWCP within one year of the Board’s merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 and 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish that he 

sustained a lower back injury causally related to factors of his employment. 

 9 Supra note 5. 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 9, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed, as modified. 

Issued: November 2, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board