United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.M., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL 

CENTER, Las Vegas, NV, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0537 

Issued: September 10, 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 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 20, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of the November 26, 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 merit decision in this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof in establishing that he 

sustained an occupational disease in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 26, 2014 appellant, then a 58-year-old supply technician filed a Form 

CA-2, occupational disease claim alleging that he developed low back pain and bilateral knee 

 

 1 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

pain from constant lifting, bending, and stooping required in his job as a supply technician. He 

first became aware of his condition and realized it was causally related to his employment on 

May 1, 2014. Appellant did not stop work. His supervisor, Patag Patrick noted on appellant’s 

claim form that appellant returned to work and was restricted to lifting no more than 10 pounds 

until his follow-up appointment. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. Farooq Kayani, a Board-certified family practitioner, on 

October 2, 2014, who noted appellant could return to work on October 2, 2014 and continued 

appellant’s work restrictions. He came under the treatment of Dr. Vincent O. Chu, a Boardcertified internist, on December 30, 2013 for atypical chest pain and a stress test. Dr. Chu 

diagnosed chronic kidney disease, type 2 uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, glucose-6-phosphate 

dehydrogenase, hypertension, dyslipidemia, tobacco disorder, chronic low back pain, knee pain, 

and allergic rhinitis. On April 11 and August 26, 2014 he treated appellant for low back pain and 

bilateral knee pain with locking knees after prolonged standing and sitting. Dr. Chu noted that 

appellant’s history was significant for patella chondromalacia, knee pain, and low back pain. 

On October 20, 2014 OWCP advised appellant of the factual and medical evidence 

needed to establish his claim. It requested that he describe in greater detail the 

employment-related activities he believed contributed to his condition. OWCP also requested 

that appellant submit a physician’s reasoned opinion addressing the relationship of his claimed 

condition and specific employment factors. 

On October 27, 2014 appellant submitted a Form CA-7, claim for compensation, for 

leave without pay for October 24, 2014. He submitted a prescription note from Dr. Leonardo A. 

Gan-Lim, a Board-certified internist, dated October 24, 2014, that excused appellant from lifting, 

pulling, and bending for one month because of aggravation of his low back pain. On October 24, 

2014 Dr. Gan-Lim, diagnosed chronic back pain and bilateral knee pain and ordered x-rays of 

the back and knees. Also submitted was a medical report which was illegible due to poor copy 

quality. 

In a decision dated November 26, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding the 

evidence was insufficient to establish the events occurred as alleged. It also indicated that he did 

not submit any medical evidence to establish the diagnosed medical condition was causally 

related to a work injury or event. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

essential elements of his or her claim. When an employee claims that he or she sustained an 

injury in the performance of duty, he or she must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he 

or she experienced a specific event, incident, or exposure occurring at the time, place, and in the 

manner alleged. Appellant must also establish that such event, incident, or exposure caused an 

injury.2

 

 2 See Walter D. Morehead, 31 ECAB 188, 194 (1979) (occupational disease or illness); Max Haber, 19 ECAB 

243, 247 (1967) (traumatic injury). See generally John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143 (1989). 
3

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) 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 medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is generally rationalized 

medical opinion evidence. Rationalized medical 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.3

ANALYSIS 

OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that he failed to establish that the events 

occurred as alleged. It is not disputed that his duties as a supply technician involved lifting, 

bending, and stooping. Specifically, appellant’s supervisor, did not dispute appellant’s 

description of his work duties or that appellant was performing those duties on or about 

May 1, 2014. Rather, the supervisor noted on the Form CA-2 that appellant had returned to work 

and was restricted to lifting no more than 10 pounds until his follow-up appointment on 

October 2, 2014. The evidence is undisputed that on or about May 1, 2014, appellant was 

performing his work duties as a supply technician which included performing lifting, bending, 

and stooping.4 

The Board finds that the medical evidence in this claim is insufficient to establish that 

appellant developed a low back and bilateral knee condition related to his employment duties. 

On October 20, 2014 OWCP advised appellant of the type of medical evidence needed, but 

appellant has not offered evidence to establish that any of his claimed conditions are causally 

related to specific employment factors or conditions. 

Appellant submitted an October 2, 2014 note from Dr. Kayani who returned appellant to 

work on October 2, 2014 and continued his work restrictions. He was treated by Dr. Chu on 

December 30, 2013 for atypical chest pain and a stress test. Dr. Chu diagnosed chronic low back 

pain and knee pain. However, neither Drs. Kayani nor Chu’s reports provide a history of injury5

 3 Solomon Polen, 51 ECAB 341 (2000). 

4 See H.G., 59 ECAB 552 (2008) (an injury does not have to be confirmed by an eyewitness to establish that it 

occurred in the performance of duty; an employee’s statement regarding the circumstances surrounding an injury is 

of great probative value and will be accepted unless refuted by persuasive evidence). 

5 See Frank Luis Rembisz, 52 ECAB 147 (2000) (medical opinions based on an incomplete history). 
4

or offer an opinion on how appellant’s employment caused or aggravated his condition.6

 

Consequently these reports are of no probative value and do not establish appellant’s 

occupational illness claim. 

In reports dated April 11 and August 26, 2014, Dr. Chu treated appellant for low back 

pain and bilateral knee pain with locking knees after prolonged standing and sitting. He noted 

that appellant’s history was significant for patella chondromalacia, knee pain, and low back pain. 

Dr. Chu diagnosed chronic low back pain and knee pain. These additional reports are also 

insufficient because Dr. Chu failed to offer rationalized medical opinion on whether appellant’s 

low back and bilateral knee pain was related to his employment duties.7

 

Appellant submitted a prescription note from Dr. Gan-Lim dated October 24, 2014, who 

excused appellant from work activities that involve lifting, pulling, and bending for one month 

because of aggravation of his low back pain. On October 24, 2014 Dr. Gan Lim, diagnosed 

chronic back pain and bilateral knee pain and ordered x-rays of the back and knees. He did not 

provide a history of injury8

 or specifically address whether appellant’s employment activities had 

caused or aggravated a diagnosed medical condition.9 

There is no other medical evidence that provides an opinion on the causal relationship 

between appellant’s job and his diagnosed conditions. 

An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture, or speculation. 

Neither the fact that appellant’s condition became apparent during a period of employment nor 

the belief that his condition was caused, precipitated, or aggravated by his employment is 

sufficient to establish causal relationship. Causal relationships must be established by 

rationalized medical opinion evidence.10 Appellant failed to submit such evidence, and OWCP 

therefore properly denied appellant’s claim for compensation. 

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 meet his burden of proof to establish that he 

sustained an occupational disease in the performance of duty. 

 6 A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006) (medical evidence which does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an 

employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship). 

7 Franklin D. Haislah, 52 ECAB 457 (2001); Jimmie H. Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001) (medical reports not 

containing rationale on causal relationship are entitled to little probative value). 

8 Supra note 5. 

9 Supra note 6. 

10 See Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 26, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 10, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board