United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MOUNT 

GREENWOOD POST OFFICE, 

Chicago, IL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0275 

Issued: September 17, 2015 

Appearances: Oral Argument August 18, 2015 

Coby Jones, for the appellant 

No Appearance, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 13, 2014 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from 

an October 1, 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 established that she had a pinched nerve in her back and/or 

degenerative disc disease that was caused or aggravated by factors of her federal employment. 

Appellant’s representative contended at oral argument that appellant, through the report 

of her treating physician, provided sufficient objective medical findings for initial acceptance of 

the aggravation of her preexisting degenerative conditions for her new work exposure. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 4, 2013 appellant, then a 55-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim alleging that she began experiencing pain in her lower back while loading a truck 

during the performance of her federal duties intermittently for the period December 26, 2012, 

when she returned to work,2

 until February 29, 2013. She explained that the pain increased 

while walking and carrying a satchel weighing up to 35 pounds on her shoulder. Appellant 

alleged that, by the end of the workday, her right leg and knee were weak and her feet ached. 

She listed the nature of her disease as pinched nerve in the back/disc degenerative disease. The 

employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim. 

In a statement dated March 5, 2013, appellant indicated that she returned to work after 

being off her federal duties in excess of 11 years due to a prior accepted claim, and that this 

presented challenges. She alleged that she had a medical history of lumbar radiculopathy 

(pinched nerve in back) which was produced in the work environment and also had degenerative 

disc disease which was aggravated in the work environment. Appellant noted that during her 

absence from work she worked as a substitute teacher, and during that time never experienced 

any of the severe symptoms that were now revisiting her as a result of returning to work in a 

physically demanding environment. She described her work activities as lifting parcels, standing 

on a concrete floor, loading trucks, bending, stooping, twisting, and carry a satchel weighing up 

to 35 pounds on her shoulder while walking as many as six to seven miles per day, and climbing 

stairs to deliver mail. Appellant also noted that she must perform heavy lifting and bending to 

load the truck. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted multiple reports by her treating Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Samuel J. Chmell. In a February 21, 2013 office note with 

regard to a follow-up visit, Dr. Chmell described appellant’s duties after she returned to work 

without restrictions as a letter carrier. He diagnosed lumbar disc derangement with 

radiculopathy/pinched nerve; bilateral ankle and foot derangement; multiple tendinitis upper 

extremities/carpal tunnel syndrome; cervical derangement; right knee derangement; and left 

shoulder derangement. 

In a March 25, 2013 letter, Dr. Chmell noted that he examined appellant on February 21, 

2013 and her office visit immediately prior to that was June 28, 2012, at which point he released 

her back to work with restrictions. He stated that if she had been allowed to work and act within 

her restrictions and not forced to exceed her limitations and restrictions, her symptoms would be 

under control and she would be able to function at the restricted level. Dr. Chmell opined that 

appellant has had an aggravation of her accepted employment-related conditions and diagnoses. 

 2

 The record reveals that appellant had filed a prior claim on April 5, 2000, assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx487, 

alleging that her employment duties of casing and pulling mail required her to stand, stoop, and twist and placed 

stress on her lower back. Appellant also claimed that standing and walking on concrete resulted in the onset of a 

condition starting on March 1, 1999. OWCP accepted that these work activities resulted in lumbar radiculopathy 

radiating into appellant’s right leg. Appellant also filed a claim alleging that her letter carrying duties resulted in the 

onset of lower extremity and lower back conditions. OWCP accepted this claim for a herniated disc at the L5-S1 

level under OWCP File No. xxxxxx496. Appellant performed restricted-duty work before stopping work on 

January 22, 2001. On July 17, 2013 OWCP combined these cases together with current file, OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx487 serving as the master file. 
3

He listed the specific activities that she had to perform that led to this aggravation as repetitive 

casing of mail, repetitive bending and lifting, loading trucks, carrying a mailbag weighing up to 

35 pounds on her left shoulder and walking six to seven miles per day as well as climbing stairs 

and descending stairs to deliver mail. Dr. Chmell also noted that while loading a truck appellant 

had to do repetitive heavy lifting and bending. He opined that excessive walking with 35 pounds 

of weight injured her cervical and lumbar spine areas aggravated her underlying conditions. 

Dr. Chmell stated that the duties appellant had to perform, when she returned back to work 

without restrictions, as a letter carrier aggravated her underlying conditions, causing her 

additional injury. He noted that his opinion was based upon a reasonable degree of medical and 

orthopedic surgical certainty. 

In a July 12, 2013 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as it found that the medical 

evidence did not demonstrate that the claimed medical condition was related to the established 

employment events. 

On August 9, 2013 appellant requested review of the written record by an OWCP hearing 

representative. By decision dated January 24, 2014, the hearing representative affirmed the 

July 12, 2013 decision. 

In a June 26, 2014 report, Dr. Chmell noted that he had reviewed an OWCP hearing 

representative’s decision. He reported that appellant had been referred to him by her podiatrist. 

Dr. Chmell noted in his May 31, 2000 report that appellant had a nerve compression in her low 

back at L5-S1 and that magnetic resonance imaging scans demonstrated a bulging disc. He 

noted that his opinion as to a nerve compression was later confirmed by a computerized 

tomography/myelogram performed on February 29, 2002. Dr. Chmell stated that, based on these 

objective findings, his recommendation was for appellant to perform either work in the sedentary 

position, limited duty, change of craft, or for her to undergo vocational rehabilitation. He noted 

that following many failed attempts where appellant’s employer failed to follow his 

recommendations, he had to take appellant off of work for medical reasons on January 21, 2001. 

Dr. Chmell noted that appellant returned to work on December 26, 2012 and filed a claim 

for an occupational disease on February 25, 2013. He opined that appellant’s condition of a 

bulging disc and her preexisting condition of degenerative disc disease were impacted by her 

work activities. Dr. Chmell described these work activities as repetitive movements of walking 

while carrying a mail satchel and climbing and descending stairs over extended periods of time. 

He noted that it was not natural to carry 25 to 35 pounds for four to eight hours a day, 

particularly for an individual who weighs less than 120 pounds. Dr. Chmell explained that 

appellant’s work activities of walking while carrying a mail satchel and walking up and down 

stairs resulted in an increased dynamic loading on her musculoskeletal system, especially her 

spinal column. He further explained that extensive walking and/or climbing stairs with this 

significant weight produced shock waves generated by the heel strike and metatarsal strike as her 

feet connected with the surface. Dr. Chmell pointed out that, with the added weight of the mail 

satchel, the biomechanics of walking increased the intensity of shock waves which traveled 

through appellant’s feet, legs, and especially her low back. Further, he pointed out that her loss 

of fluid in her discs reduced the ability of her lumbar spine discs to act as shock absorbers and 

left them less flexible and unable to absorb the shock from the mechanism of walking and 

especially climbing stairs, and that as a result the vertebrae in her back received less cushion. 
4

Dr. Chmell further noted that this repetitive activity put stress on appellant’s musculoskeletal 

system and spine while carrying simultaneously aggravated her bulging disc and degenerative 

disc disease. He concluded, “based upon a reasonable degree of medical and orthopedic surgical 

certainty,” that appellant’s bulging and/or herniated discs “are the direct result of carrying mail 

as described.” Dr. Chmell further concluded that appellant’s restrictions were permanent, and 

that she needed either a permanent limited- or light-duty job or a reasonable accommodation to 

return to work. 

On July 10, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration. 

By decision dated October 1, 2014, OWCP denied modification as it found that the 

medical evidence was not sufficient to support that appellant’s employment duties intermittently 

from December 26, 2012 through February 9, 2013 either resulted in a new employment injury, a 

permanent aggravation of her back conditions, or materially changed the underlying condition. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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 timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation period 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. These are the essential elements of each and every 

compensation claim regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an 

occupational disease.3 

In order to determine whether an employee actually sustained an injury in the 

performance of duty, OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been 

established. Generally, fact of injury consists of two components, which must be considered in 

conjunction with one another. The first component to be established is that the employee 

actually experienced the employment incident or exposure, which is alleged to have occurred.4 

In order to meet his or her burden of proof to establish the fact that he or she sustained an injury 

in the performance of duty, an employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or 

she actually experienced the employment injury or exposure at the time, place, and in the manner 

alleged.5

 

The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and 

generally can be established only by medical evidence.6

 The medical evidence required to 

establish causal relationship is usually rationalized medical evidence. Rationalized medical 

 3 Jussara L. Arcanjo, 55 ECAB 281, 283 (2004). 

4 See Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989); see also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims,

Fact of Injury, Chapter 2.803.2(a) (August 2012). 

5 Linda S. Jackson, 49 ECAB 486 (1998). 

6 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); Horace Langhorne, 29 ECAB 820 (1978). 
5

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.7

Under FECA, when employment factors cause an aggravation of an underlying condition, 

the employee is entitled to compensation for the periods of disability related to the aggravation.8

 

Where the medical evidence supports an aggravation or acceleration of an underlying condition 

precipitated by working conditions or injuries, such disability is compensable.9 However, the 

normal progression of untreated disease cannot be stated to constitute aggravation of a condition 

merely because the performance of normal work duties reveals the underlying condition.10 For 

the conditions of employment to bring about an aggravation of preexisting disease, the 

employment must cause acceleration of the disease or precipitate disability. When the 

aggravation is temporary and leaves no permanent residuals, compensation is not payable for 

periods after the aggravation ceased.11

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision. 

OWCP accepted that appellant intermittently engaged in repetitive employment activities 

as a letter carrier from December 26, 2012 through February 19, 2013. Appellant alleged an 

injury causally related to her return to her employment duties during this period of time. 

However, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because it determined that appellant had not 

submitted a rationalized medical report sufficient to establish a causal relationship between 

appellant’s diagnosed medical condition and the activities of her federal employment from 

December 26, 2012 through February 19, 2013. 

The Board finds that the reports of Dr. Chmell are sufficiently rationalized to require 

further development of the record. The Board notes that an employee who claims benefits under 

FECA has the burden of establishing the essential elements of his or her claim. 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. As part of this burden, the claimant must present 

rationalized medical opinion evidence based upon a complete and accurate factual and medical 

 7 Judith A. Peot, 46 ECAB 1036 (1995); Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276 (1994). 

8 Raymond W. Behrens, 50 ECAB 221 (1999); James L. Hearn, 29 ECAB 278 (1978). 

9 A.S., Docket No. 16-614 (issued June 25, 2015). 

10 Glenn C. Chasteen, 42 ECAB 493 (1991). 

11 Raymond W. Behrens, supra note 8. 
6

background establishing causal relationship.12 However, it is well established that proceedings 

under FECA are not adversarial in nature, nor is OWCP a disinterested arbiter. While the 

claimant has the burden to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares responsibility in 

the development of the evidence to see that justice is done.13 

In the instant case, Dr. Chmell, who has been appellant’s treating Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon since May 2000, clearly described appellant’s employment duties from 

December 26, 2012 through February 19, 2013. He described in specific detail how the 

mechanism of walking four to eight hours a day and carrying her mail satchel, and ascending and 

descending the stairs resulted in pain from her back down to her right leg, ankle and foot. These 

activities, in combination with the fact that appellant weighed less than 120 pounds, put stress on 

her musculoskeletal system and spine while simultaneously aggravating her underlying 

conditions of bulging disc and degenerative disc disease. While appellant had only returned to 

work for approximately 43 days, the medical report is sufficiently rationalized to warrant further 

development of the evidence. 

The Board finds that Dr. Chmell’s opinion was sufficient to establish a prima facie case 

that there was a causal relationship between appellant’s medical condition and her employment 

activities of December 26, 2012 through February 19, 2013.14

On remand, OWCP should submit a statement of accepted facts to a second opinion 

physician in order to obtain a rationalized opinion as to whether her current condition is causally 

related to factors of her federal employment from December 26, 2012 through 

February 19, 2013. Following this and any other development deemed necessary, OWCP shall 

issue a de novo decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision as to whether appellant 

suffered a pinched nerve in her back and/or degenerative disc disease that was caused or 

aggravated by factors of her federal employment. 

 12 See Virginia Richard, claiming as executrix of the estate of Lionel F. Richard, 53 ECAB 430 (2002); see also 

Brian E. Flescher, 40 ECAB 532, 536 (1989); Ronald K. White, 37 ECAB 176, 178 (1985). 

13 See Richard E. Simpson, 55 ECAB 490 (2004). 

14 See E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 2010). 
7

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 1, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further development 

consistent with this decision. 

Issued: September 17, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board