United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

F.J., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

CENTRAL ALABAMA HEALTHCARE 

SYSTEM, Montgomery, AL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1626 

Issued: October 20, 2016 

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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 27, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a July 14, 2015 merit decision1 of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ 

Compensation Act2

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction to 

consider the merits of the case. 

 1

 The case record initially transmitted to the Board did not include the July 14, 2015 OWCP decision. The Board 

issued an Order Dismissing Appeal on December 23, 2015 since there was no OWCP decision in the record issued 

within 180 days of the filing of the appeal. Docket No. 15-1626 (issued December 23, 2015). Appellant filed a 

petition for reconsideration and submitted a copy of the July 14, 2015 decision. The Board issued an Order 

Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstating Appeal on July 20, 2016. Docket No. 15-1626 (issued 

July 20, 2016). On July 21, 2016 the Board issued an Order to Complete Record Within 30 Days. Docket No. 

15-1626 (issued July 21, 2016). OWCP complied with this order on September 14, 2016 providing the Board with a 

copy of the July 14, 2015 decision. 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an employmentrelated aggravation of his preexisting allergic rhinitis due to work-related exposures. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 16, 2014 appellant, then a 65-year-old medical record technician, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging an aggravation of his allergies and respiratory 

problems due to his working with medical records in the file room. He first became aware of his 

condition on September 10, 2014 and first attributed his condition to his employment on that 

date. 

In a letter dated October 24, 2014, OWCP requested that appellant provide additional 

factual and medical evidence in support of his claim for occupational disease. It noted that 

appellant had not provided any medical evidence in support of a diagnosed condition. OWCP 

allowed appellant 30 days for a response. 

On April 17, 2014 appellant reported to the employing establishment health unit due to 

worsening allergy symptoms. He attributed his symptoms to exposure to mold spores while 

working in medical records. Appellant noted that the records in Building 62 were contaminated 

because the building had been shut down for years without climate control. 

The employing establishment provided a June 2014 risk assessment report regarding the 

basement of Building 62. This report concluded that the building’s current environmental state 

was not a suitable working environment for staff. An industrial hygienist performed an 

inspection of the file room of Building 62 and found that ceiling tiles had fallen, plaster was 

delaminating, and there was an increase in the amount of fine particulate matter suspended in the 

air. The report noted that the HVAC systems had been shut off since the building had been 

vacated, and there were boxes with mold growth in the records room. 

On September 18, 2014 Dr. Richard O’Donnell, a Board-certified internist, examined 

appellant for a perceived worsening of his allergies. He noted that appellant worked in Building 

62, an unairconditioned, unheated building, for the last nine months to retire records. Appellant 

alleged that mold had been detected in the building and that medical records had been 

contaminated with mold. Dr. O’Donnell diagnosed allergic rhinitis with mild hypertrophy of the 

nasal turbinates from rhinitis. 

Dr. James R. Bonner, a Board-certified internist, allergist, and infectious disease 

physician, examined appellant on October 9, 2014 and noted appellant’s allegations of work 

exposure to mold. He diagnosed chronic rhinitis and congestion for over 20 years. Dr. Bonner 

opined that appellant’s skin testing did not suggest an allergic cause of nasal symptoms, but that 

appellant’s history was more consistent with irritant/nonallergic rhinitis. He further noted that 

appellant’s spirometry was within normal limits and that he could neither confirm nor exclude a 

diagnosis of asthma. 
3

In a statement dated November 4, 2014, appellant alleged that he worked at the 

employing establishment as a records clerk for 14 years in the basement of Building 62 at 

Tuskegee, Alabama. The building had been then vacated, but the medical records were left in 

the basement without air conditioning or central heat. The records became wet and molded and 

the building had a musty odor. Appellant alleged that in his last year of working in this building 

his sinuses were affected due to his daily contact with the wet and molded medical records. He 

noted that management was informed that the handling of medical records could not be 

performed due to the hazardous conditions and mold on the walls, ceilings, and medical records. 

By decision dated December 19, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim finding that he failed to establish a causal relationship between his diagnosed allergies and 

his accepted employment factors, i.e., exposure to mold in Building 62. 

Appellant requested reconsideration on April 6, 2015. In support of his request, he 

submitted a report dated January 12, 2015 from Dr. O’Donnell. Dr. O’Donnell noted that 

appellant had a history of allergic rhinitis and had sustained an exacerbation of this condition in 

the last year. He noted that appellant was exposed to mold at work. Dr. O’Donnell opined, 

“Considering that his allergies had been fairly well controlled up to a year ago (up until he began 

working in this government structure where there was storage of old paperwork that had been 

found to have mold on it) I seriously think that the mold he was exposed to on the job was the 

main cause of the persistent exacerbation of his allergic rhinitis. Probably the fact that he goes 

back periodically to this structure is why he continues to experience flare ups of his allergic 

rhinitis in spite of him using the routine medication that had been prescribed for control of 

allergic rhinitis.” 

By decision dated July 14, 2015, OWCP denied modification of its prior decisions 

finding that appellant had not submitted sufficient medical opinion evidence to establish his 

occupational disease claim. It found that Dr. O’Donnell’s report was not based on a complete 

factual background as it did not address his preexisting allergy causes and treatments. OWCP 

also noted that Dr. O’Donnell’s report did not provide sufficient medical reasoning as it was 

couched in speculative terms. 

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.”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) 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 

 3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q). 
4

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.4

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish an 

employment-related aggravation of his preexisting allergic rhinitis due to work-related 

exposures. 

Appellant has provided medical evidence of diagnosed condition, allergic rhinitis. He 

has also provided evidence that he was exposed to mold in the performance of his federal job 

duties as noted in the employing establishment’s June 2014 risk assessment report. However, 

appellant has not provided the necessary medical opinion evidence to establish a causal 

relationship between his diagnosed condition and his accepted employment exposures. 

 In his October 9, 2014 report, Dr. Bonner, a Board-certified internist, allergist, and 

infectious disease physician, noted appellant’s allegations of work exposure to mold. He also 

diagnosed chronic rhinitis and congestion for over 20 years. However, Dr. Bonner found that 

appellant’s skin testing did not support an allergic cause of his rhinitis and instead opined that 

appellant’s history was more consistent with irritant or nonallergic rhinitis. This report does not 

support appellant’s claim for a work-related occupational disease. Instead Dr. Bonner opined 

that appellant was not experiencing allergic rhinitis due to mold, but rather an irritant rhinitis. 

Dr. O’Donnell completed reports on September 18, 2014 and January 12, 2015 

diagnosing allergic rhinitis with an exacerbation of this condition within the last year. He also 

noted appellant’s exposure to mold and work. Dr. O’Donnell indicated that he thought that 

appellant’s mold exposure was the main cause of the persistent exacerbation of his allergic 

rhinitis. He did not provide a full history of appellant’s rhinitis, skin test results, or other basis 

for his diagnoses and conclusions. Additional medical explanation in support of his opinion is 

necessary given the alternative diagnosis by Dr. Bonner, the Board-certified specialist. Without 

a clear explanation of why he felt that appellant’s appropriate diagnosis was allergic rhinitis, test 

results that established that appellant was in fact allergic to mold, and a clear opinion regarding 

how and why appellant’s employment exposures aggravated his diagnosed condition, 

Dr. Bonner’s reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof to establish an 

aggravation of his rhinitis due to exposure to mold in the performance of his federal job duties.5

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. 

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

5 Id. 
5

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish an 

employment-related aggravation of his preexisting allergic rhinitis due to work-related 

exposures. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 14, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 20, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board