United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

E.T., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, San Jose, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0687 

Issued: June 19, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 10, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a January 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. 

ISSUE 

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

causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

On appeal counsel contends that OWCP failed to properly consider the medical evidence. 

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case was previously before the Board. Appellant, a 55-year-old transportation 

security officer, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained a 

back strain as a result of lifting heavy bags in the performance of duty. In a decision dated 

December 4, 2013, the Board affirmed OWCP’s May 28, 2013 decision, finding that appellant 

had not met her burden of proof to establish a back condition in the performance of duty causally 

related to factors of her federal employment.2 The facts of the case, as set forth in the prior 

decision, are incorporated by reference. 

On October 9, 2014 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted 

a July 30, 2009 report from Dr. Misty Navarro, a Board-certified emergency medicine physician, 

who diagnosed low back strain secondary to a work-related injury. Dr. Navarro indicated that 

appellant injured her back at work on July 30, 2009 and when she lifted luggage it caused more 

pain to her back, which radiated down to her foot and up into her shoulder on the right side. 

A July 30, 2009 x-ray of the lumbar spine showed mild scoliosis and multilevel lumbar 

spondylosis which appeared to be most advanced at L4-5. 

In a January 26, 2011 report, Dr. Joanna Oppenheim, a Board-certified family 

practitioner, indicated that appellant lifted luggage at work and sustained an employment-related 

injury two years ago. She diagnosed menometrorrhagia resulting in low hemoglobin, shoulder 

pain suspect due to bursitis, and lumbago long-standing with acute re-injury. On September 23, 

2014 Dr. Oppenheim reiterated appellant’s medical history. In a September 29, 2014 report, she 

diagnosed low back strain secondary to work-related injury due to picking up a heavy bag at 

work. 

On April 11, 2011 Dr. Kathleen Tonti-Horne, a family medicine specialist, diagnosed 

back pain and indicated that the pain in appellant’s lower lumbar spine radiated to the left and 

right foot. Appellant stated that her pain precipitated from lifting checked bags at work two 

years ago and was aggravated by twisting movements and long days at work. 

In a November 26, 2013 report, Dr. Christopher Carver, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, 

diagnosed lumbar stenosis with bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, L4-5 discopathy with 

axial back pain, and hypertension. He indicated that appellant presented with severe low back 

pain and bilateral leg pain with weakness and numbness present for a number of years. 

Dr. Carver performed surgery on appellant’s back that same day. On December 3, 2013 he 

discharged appellant, indicating that she underwent uncomplicated decompression, stabilization, 

and fusion for instability and stenosis at L4-5 and had follow-up x-rays on November 30, 2013, 

which looked good. 

By decision dated January 9, 2015, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. 

                                                             2

 Docket No. 13-1643 (issued December 4, 2013). 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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, and that an injury4

 was sustained in the performance of duty. These 

are the essential elements of each 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 a claim for an 

occupational disease claim, an employee must submit 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 evidence. 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.7

 

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish her claim that 

federal employment factors caused or aggravated her back condition. Appellant identified 

factors of employment she believed caused the condition, including lifting luggage at work. 

OWCP accepted the alleged factors of employment. However, in order to establish a claim that 

she sustained an employment-related injury, she must also submit rationalized medical evidence 

which explains how her medical condition was caused or aggravated by the implicated 

employment factors.8

 

                                                             3

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

4

 OWCP regulations define an occupational disease or illness as a condition produced by the work environment 

over a period longer than a single workday or shift. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q). 

5 See O.W., Docket No. 09-2110 (issued April 22, 2010); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 

6 See D.R., Docket No. 09-1723 (issued May 20, 2010). See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); 

Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

7 See O.W., supra note 5. 

8 See A.C., Docket No. 08-1453 (issued November 18, 2008); Donald W. Wenzel, 56 ECAB 390 (2005); Leslie C. 

Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000). 
4

In her reports, Dr. Oppenheim indicated that appellant lifted luggage at work and 

sustained an employment-related injury two years ago. She diagnosed menometrorrhagia 

resulting in low hemoglobin, shoulder pain suspect due to bursitis, and lumbago long-standing 

with acute reinjury. On September 29, 2014 Dr. Oppenheim diagnosed low back strain 

secondary to work-related injury due to picking up a heavy bag at work. She failed, however, to 

provide a rationalized opinion explaining how factors of appellant’s federal employment, such as 

lifting luggage at work, caused or aggravated her back condition. Dr. Oppenheim noted that 

appellant’s condition occurred while she was at work, but such generalized statements do not 

establish causal relationship. They merely repeat appellant’s allegations and are unsupported by 

adequate medical rationale to explain how the physical activity at work actually caused or 

aggravated the diagnosed conditions.9

On July 30, 2009 Dr. Navarro diagnosed low back strain secondary to a work-related 

injury. She indicated that appellant injured her back at work on July 30, 2009 and when she 

lifted luggage it caused more pain to her back, which radiated down to her foot and up into her 

shoulder on the right side. The Board has held that the mere fact that appellant’s symptoms arise 

during a period of employment or produce symptoms revelatory of an underlying condition does 

not establish a causal relationship between appellant’s condition and her employment factors.10 

Dr. Navarro failed to provide a rationalized opinion explaining how factors of appellant’s federal 

employment, such as lifting luggage at work, caused or aggravated her back condition. 

In his reports, Dr. Carver diagnosed lumbar stenosis with bilateral lower extremity 

radiculopathy and L4-5 discopathy with axial back pain. He performed back surgery on 

November 26, 2013 and indicated that appellant had presented with severe low back pain and 

bilateral leg pain with weakness and numbness present for a number of years. The Board has 

held that 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.11

On April 11, 2011 Dr. Tonti-Horne diagnosed back pain and indicated that the pain in 

appellant’s lower lumbar spine radiated to the left and right foot. The Board finds that Dr. TontiHorne’s diagnosis of back pain with radiating bilateral foot pain is a description of a symptom 

rather than a clear diagnosis of the medical condition.12

In support of her claim, appellant submitted diagnostic testing, including a July 30, 2009 

x-ray of the lumbar spine. These documents do not constitute competent medical evidence as 

they do not contain rationale by a physician relating appellant’s disability to her employment.13 

                                                             9 See K.W., Docket No. 10-98 (issued September 10, 2010). 

10 See Richard B. Cissel, 32 ECAB 1910, 1917 (1981); William Nimitz, Jr., 30 ECAB 567, 570 (1979). 

11 See C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009). 

12 The Board has consistently held that pain is a symptom, rather than a compensable medical diagnosis. See P.S., 

Docket No. 12-1601 (issued January 2, 2013); C.F., Docket No. 08-1102 (issued October 10, 2008). 

13 See 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). Section 8101(2) of FECA provides as follows: “(2) ‘physician’ includes surgeons, 

podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the 

scope of their practice as defined by State law.” See also Paul Foster, 56 ECAB 208, 212 n.12 (2004); Joseph N. 

Fassi, 42 ECAB 677 (1991); Barbara J. Williams, 40 ECAB 649 (1989). 
5

As appellant has not submitted any rationalized medical evidence to support her 

allegation that she sustained an injury causally related to the accepted employment factors, she 

failed to meet her burden of proof to establish a claim. 

On appeal, counsel contends that OWCP failed to properly consider the medical 

evidence. Based on the findings and reasons stated above, the Board finds counsel’s argument 

unsubstantiated. 

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 not met her burden of proof to establish a back 

condition causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

ORDER 

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 19, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board