United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.H., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Oakland, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-835 

Issued: June 17, 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 March 3, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a September 5, 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 to consider the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an occupational 

disease due to factors of his federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 22, 2014 appellant, then a 28-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim alleging that he developed back pains while on his route. He stated that he first became 

aware of his condition on January 16, 2014 and first realized that his condition was related to his 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

employment on that date. Appellant stated that his back pain came and went and that his 

supervisors were aware of his condition beginning in January 2014. He hoped his condition 

would improve, but he could not sleep due to his back pain. 

In a letter dated July 18, 2014, OWCP requested that appellant provide additional factual 

and medical evidence in support of his claim. Appellant submitted notes from a nurse 

practitioner dated July 3 and August 13, 2014. 

On June 27, 2014 Dr. Andrea Williams, a Board-certified family practitioner, examined 

appellant due to right mid-back pain and bilateral lower back pain since January 2014. Appellant 

stated that he had been lifting heavy bags of mail weighing up to 50 pounds. He noticed that the 

back pain started with lifting. Dr. Williams diagnosed scapula and lumbar muscle strain with 

some spasm. She stated that appellant’s claim was a workers’ compensation injury. 

On August 8, 2014 appellant responded to OWCP’s request for factual information and 

stated that his route consisted of a lot of parcels and mailboxes. He stated that his route required 

him to bend over which resulted in the feeling of a pop in his back. 

By decision dated September 5, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that he 

had not established a causal relationship between his diagnosed condition and his implicated 

factors of employment. OWCP stated that appellant had not submitted the necessary rationalized 

medical opinion evidence to establish that he sustained an injury as a result of his employment 

duties. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

OWCP’s regulations define an occupational disease as “a condition produced by the work 

environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.”2 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 evidence required to establish causal 

relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence, based upon a complete factual and medical 

background, showing a causal relationship between the claimed condition and identified factors. 

The belief of a claimant that a condition was caused or aggravated by the employment is not 

sufficient to establish causal relation.3

 2

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q). 

3 Lourdes Harris, 45 ECAB 545, 547 (1994). 
3

ANALYSIS 

Appellant submitted a report from Dr. Williams diagnosing scapula and lumbar muscle 

strain. He also provided OWCP with a history of bending while delivering his route which 

caused his back to pop. Appellant has provided a diagnosed medical condition and provided a 

factual statement of the implicated employment duties. However, the Board finds that appellant 

has not submitted the necessary medical opinion to establish a causal relationship between his 

diagnosed condition and his implicated employment duties. 

On June 27, 2014 Dr. Williams provided a history of lifting heavy bags of mail rather 

than repetitive bending in appellant’s job duties. She diagnosed conditions of scapula and 

lumbar strain. Dr. Williams offered an opinion that appellant’s condition was employment 

related but did not provide any medical reasoning to explain this conclusion. This opinion 

evidence and supporting rationale should show how appellant’s bending or lifting in the 

performance of duty would result in the diagnosed conditions. For these reasons, Dr. Williams’ 

report does not meet appellant’s burden of proof and does not establish his occupational disease 

claim. 

Appellant also submitted reports dated July 3 and August 13, 2014 from nurse 

practitioners. Certain healthcare providers such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners, 

physical therapists, and social workers are not considered physicians as defined under FECA.4 

As such, their opinions will not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA 

benefits.5 These reports were not signed by a physician, and are not considered medical 

evidence to establish appellant’s occupational disease claim. 

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 his burden of proof to establish that he 

developed an occupational disease due to factors of his federal employment. 

 4

 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). 

5 E.M., Docket No. 15-469 (issued May 4, 2015); K.W., 59 ECAB 271, 279 (2007). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 5, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 17, 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