United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.T., Appellant 

and 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

REGION IX, Richmond, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1309 

Issued: September 25, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 22, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 30, 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 the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish a cervical condition 

causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 28, 2015 appellant, then a 43-year-old claims representative, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging a shoulder and neck condition, requiring 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

surgery, due to repetitive and stressful factors of her federal employment. She stopped work on 

November 3, 2014 and returned on December 8, 2014. 

In an undated statement, received from the employing establishment on February 2, 2015, 

appellant’s October 17, 2014 cervical spine condition was acknowledged including the surgery 

of November 4, 2014. It noted that she was on leave from November 3 to December 5, 2014, 

cleared for limited duty from December 8, 2014 to January 1, 2015, and released for duty 

without restrictions on January 2, 2015. The employing establishment contended that it had 

discussed with appellant the availability of ergonomic adjustments for her workstation, but she 

had failed to submit medical documentation describing what type of ergonomic equipment she 

needed. 

In a January 27, 2015 letter, the employing establishment had conveyed to appellant its 

willingness to obtain ergonomic equipment, provided that she submit appropriate medical 

documentation. It further furnished her with an ergonomic video which had information on 

adjusting a workstation. 

Dr. Vedat Deviren, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, in a December 1, 2014 work 

status note (received by OWCP on February 7, 2015) cleared appellant to work with the 

following restrictions: maintain a six-hour per day schedule, wear a hard cervical collar, and 

take 15-minute breaks every 90 minutes. In a January 23, 2015 work status note, also received 

by OWCP on February 7, 2015, Dr. Deviren requested that she be released from work from 

January 23 to 26, 2015 due to “spine precautions.” 

On January 26, 2015 Dr. Deviren completed a form requesting a special needs chair for 

appellant. He informed the employing establishment that she required a workstation positioned 

to prevent appellant from bending or twisting her neck. In an attached letter, Dr. Deviren noted 

that appellant was under his care for a spine condition and advised the employing establishment 

to provide her with “her own designated desk.”2

 

In a February 17, 2015 letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of record was 

insufficient to support her claim. It advised her to provide a medical report containing a 

physician’s opinion supported by a medical explanation as to how work factors caused or 

aggravated a diagnosed condition. 

OWCP received a December 22, 2014 Family and Medical Leave Act form, in which 

Dr. Deviren described appellant’s duties as processing claims electronically, interviewing the 

public, answering telephones, typing, and writing. Dr. Deviren noted October 17, 2014 as the 

approximate date that her injury commenced and reported that her condition would last from 12 

to 18 months. He further advised that appellant necessitated periodic absences from work for 

postsurgery follow-up examinations and physical therapy rehabilitation. 

 2

 A health summary from appellant’s healthcare provider stated that appellant was diagnosed with cervical 

spondylosis with myelopathy and cervical disc herniation on October 17, 2014, and cervical stenosis of the spine 

and cervical myelopathy on October 23, 2014. The summary indicated that appellant underwent a cervical spinal 

fusion. Accompanying the summary was a listing of blood test values from November 4 to 7, 2014, as well as 

listings of other testing and treatment provided at other times. The summary was not prepared by a physician. 
3

In a March 11, 2015 statement, appellant attributed her injury to repetitive reaching and 

typing, long hours of sitting, turning her neck to engage with clients, a lack of ergonomic 

equipment, and “stressors” from management. She contended that she sat and typed for eight 

hours per day and reached for documents approximately six hours per day. 

On April 10, 2015 appellant was seen in an emergency room by Dr. Emily Harrington, a 

neurology resident, and Dr. Gary M. Green, Board-certified in emergency medicine, for 

complaints of arm and leg numbness. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan revealed a disc 

bulge. The physicians diagnosed cervical disc herniation. In an accompanying April 10, 2015 

report, Dr. Green stated that appellant could return to work the next day. 

Appellant, in an April 17, 2015 statement, maintained that her duties included typing, 

reaching, and turning her neck, on a daily basis. She reported suffering neck and shoulder pain 

for a “few years” before seeking medical treatment. Appellant related undergoing surgery on 

November 4, 2014 and returning to work, with restrictions, on December 15, 2014. She 

expressed interest in attaining ergonomic equipment to avoid further surgery. 

On April 30, 2015 OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding the medical evidence 

insufficient to demonstrate that appellant’s condition was causally related to the identified 

employment factors. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking compensation under FECA has the burden of establishing the 

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

evidence,3 including that he or she is an employee within the meaning of FECA4 and that he or 

she filed his or her claim within the applicable time limitation.5

 The employee must also 

establish that he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty as alleged and that his or 

her disability for work, if any, was causally related to the employment injury.6

 

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

occupational disease, an employee must submit: (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.7

 

 3 J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 57 (1968). 

4 See M.H., 59 ECAB 461 (2008); see 5 U.S.C. § 8101(1). 

5 R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); see 5 U.S.C. § 8122. 

6 G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

7 See Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994). 
4

Causal relationship is a medical issue8

 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 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 employee.9

ANALYSIS 

There is no dispute that appellant’s work duties included prolonged sitting, repetitive 

reaching and typing, and engaging with clients. The issue on appeal is whether appellant 

established a cervical injury as a result of her employment. The Board finds that the medical 

evidence of record does not establish a causal relationship between appellant’s claimed condition 

and her employment duties. 

On April 10, 2015 Drs. Harrington and Green noted treating appellant for arm and leg 

numbness and diagnosed cervical disc herniation. The physicians, however, did not provide any 

opinion as to the cause of appellant’s condition. Medical evidence that does not offer any 

opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue 

of causal relationship.10 Likewise, the reports and status notes from Dr. Deviren do not offer any 

opinion supporting that appellant’s work duties caused or aggravated her cervical condition. 

The record also contains a healthcare summary and listings of medical testing and 

treatment. See supra note 2. This does not constitute probative medical evidence as there is no 

indication that the person preparing such documents qualifies as a physician. C.B., Docket No. 

09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988) (unsigned medical 

evidence with no adequate indication that it was completed by a physician is not considered 

probative medical evidence). 

On appeal, appellant reiterated that her duties, including sitting, typing, and using a 

mouse, caused her condition. As noted above, the medical evidence does not establish her claim. 

Because appellant has not provided such medical opinion evidence, she has failed to meet her 

burden of proof. 

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 establish that her cervical condition is causally 

related to factors of her federal employment. 

 8 Mary J. Briggs, 37 ECAB 578 (1986). 

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

10 J.F., Docket No. 09-1061 (issued November 17, 2009). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 30, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 25, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board