United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.N., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Portland, OR, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1331 

Issued: February 18, 2015 

Appearances: 

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 22, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 26, 2013 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 the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue on appeal is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that she 

developed a low back condition while in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board. By decision dated September 16, 2013, 

the Board set aside OWCP’s decision dated September 10, 2012. The Board determined that 

 

 1 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

appellant had submitted sufficient medical evidence to require further development of the case.2

 

The relevant facts and the circumstances of the case are incorporated herein by reference. 

In a February 9, 2011 report, Dr. Scott Young, a Board-certified physiatrist, who treated 

appellant for low back pain, noted appellant’s work involved repetitive lifting of trays often 

weighing 40 pounds and pushing heavy carts. Dr. Young advised that appellant had a history of 

low back strain 15 years earlier and was thereafter symptom free. He indicated that on 

November 30, 2010 appellant reported a gradual onset of low back pain through the workday 

with repetitive lifting although she could not recollect one specific incident and the next day she 

had pain and tingling to the anterior right thigh. Dr. Young noted diffuse midline and 

paravertebral tenderness to the lumbar spine, no atrophy to the lower extremities, diminished 

sensation to the anterior right thigh and normal motor function. He diagnosed extruded disc 

fragment at L2-3 with ongoing pain and recommended epidural steroid injections and possible 

surgery. Dr. Young noted appellant’s history was onset of pain with fairly strenuous activities 

on the job, that she had a discrete lesion on the MRI scan and opined that this was a work-related 

condition. 

On February 17, 2011 appellant was treated by Dr. John P. Seymour, a Board-certified 

orthopedist, who advised that appellant was lifting sacks and pushing bins when the injury 

occurred. Dr. Seymour diagnosed right L2-3 herniated disc and opined that appellant was totally 

disabled. 

The Board found that, although these reports were not fully rationalized to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof, they were sufficient to require OWCP to further develop the medical 

evidence.3

Following the Board’s remand, OWCP referred appellant, along with the record, a 

statement of accepted facts, and a list of questions, to Dr. Aleksandar Curcin, a Board-certified 

orthopedist, for a second opinion. It provided Dr. Curcin with appellant’s medical records as 

well as a detailed description of appellant’s employment duties. 

In his November 18, 2013 report, Dr. Curcin reviewed the medical record and noted 

appellant’s history and current complaints. On examination, appellant had tenderness to light 

touch, palpation, and percussion of the sacroiliac joint. There was no discomfort with axial 

loading to shoulders. Appellant had normal gait and she walked on heels and tip toes without 

discomfort. Lumbar spine range of motion was substantially self-restricted. Appellant had selfreported pain with flexion, extension, and right lateral flexion. Right hip rotation reproduced 

pain. Appellant had negative straight leg raises and 5/5 motor strength. Sensory was diminished 

in the right L3 and S1 distribution, and reflexes were brisk at patellar and Achilles bilaterally. 

Dr. Curcin noted that there were no orthopedic diagnoses felt to be connected to appellant’s work 

activities either by direct cause, aggravation, precipitation, or acceleration. He noted that his 

 2

 Docket No. 13-1000 (issued September 16, 2013). On January 8, 2011 appellant, a clerk, filed an occupational 

disease claim alleging that she developed a herniated disc after performing repetitive walking, standing, pushing, 

sorting, lifting, and bagging parcels of mail at work. She stopped work on November 30, 2010. 

3 Id.
3

record review showed that there was diagnostic imaging which confirmed resolution of the disc 

herniation although appellant still continued with significant complaints of pain. Dr. Curcin 

found no work-related conditions were caused or aggravated by appellant’s work activities. He 

noted that appellant was at maximum medical improvement without expectation for further 

improvement and she was capable of returning to full-time, full-duty work without restrictions. 

Dr. Curcin noted that no further treatment was necessary. In a work capacity evaluation dated 

November 18, 2013, he noted that appellant was capable of returning to her usual job, full time, 

eight hours per day without restrictions. 

In a November 26, 2013 decision, OWCP denied the claim on the grounds that the 

medical evidence was not sufficient to establish that her condition was caused by employment 

factors. 

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 filed within the applicable time limitation 

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 is 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.4

 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 which is alleged to have occurred.5 The second 

component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and generally can be 

established only by medical evidence. To establish a causal relationship between the condition, 

as well as any attendant disability, claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee 

must submit rationalized medical opinion evidence, based on a complete factual and medical 

background, supporting such a causal relationship.6

 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 

 4 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 357 (2001). 

5 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

6 Id. 
4

identified by the claimant.7

 The weight of medical evidence is determined by its reliability, its 

probative value, its convincing quality, the care of analysis manifested and the medical rationale 

expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.8

ANALYSIS 

In its September 16, 2013 decision, the Board set aside OWCP’s decision of 

September 10, 2012 and remanded the claim for further medical development. The Board 

instructed OWCP to secure a reasoned medical report addressing whether appellant’s low back 

condition was caused or aggravated by her work duties. 

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Curcin who, in a November 18, 2013 report, found no 

evidence of causal relationship between appellant’s work duties and the diagnosed L2-3 

herniated disc. Dr. Curcin advised that there were no orthopedic diagnoses connected to 

appellant’s work activities either by cause or aggravation. He noted that his review of the record 

showed diagnostic testing indicating resolution of the disc herniation. Dr. Curcin reported 

findings on examination noting that appellant had normal gait and that her range of motion of the 

lumbar spine was substantially self-restricted. He found no basis to attribute any orthopedic 

condition to appellant’s work. Dr. Curcin noted that appellant was at maximum medical 

improvement without expectation for further improvement and she was capable of returning to 

full-time, full-duty work without restrictions. He noted no further treatment was necessary. In a 

work capacity evaluation dated November 18, 2013, Dr. Curcin noted that appellant was capable 

of returning to her usual job, full time, eight hours per day without restrictions. 

The Board finds that the weight of the medical evidence rests with the well-rationalized 

opinion of Dr. Curcin to whom appellant was referred for a second opinion examination and who 

reviewed the statement of accepted facts prepared by OWCP. The Board has noted that in 

assessing medical evidence the weight of such evidence is determined by its reliability, its 

probative value and its convincing quality and the factors which enter in such an evaluation 

include the opportunity for and thoroughness of examination, the accuracy and completeness of 

the physician’s knowledge of the facts and medical history, the care of the analysis manifested 

and the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.9

 The Board has 

carefully reviewed Dr. Curcin’s November 18, 2013 report and notes that it has such reliability, 

probative value and convincing quality. Prior to reaching his conclusions, Dr. Curcin reviewed 

appellant’s factual and medical history and reported the findings of his examination of appellant. 

Appellant previously submitted a February 9, 2011 report from Dr. Young who indicated 

that on November 30, 2010, appellant reported a gradual onset of low back pain through the 

workday with repetitive lifting. Dr. Young noted appellant’s history is of onset of pain with 

fairly strenuous activities on the job and noted that she had a discrete lesion on the MRI scan and 

 7 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000). 

8 Franklin D. Haislah, 52 ECAB 457 (2001) (medical reports not containing rationale on causal relationship are 

entitled to little probative value); Jimmie H. Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001). 

9 See Melvina Jackson, 38 ECAB 443, 449-50 (1987); Naomi Lilly, 10 ECAB 560, 573 (1959). 
5

opined that this was work related. Similarly, on February 17, 2011, Dr. Seymour noted 

appellant’s history was of onset of pain with fairly strenuous activities on the job with discrete 

lesion on MRI scan and opined that this was a work-related condition. The Board finds that, 

although Drs. Young and Seymour supported causal relationship, they did not provide medical 

rationale explaining the basis of their opinion regarding the causal relationship between 

appellant’s herniated disc and the factors of employment.10 For example, the physicians did not 

explain the process by which heavy exertion would cause the diagnosed condition and why such 

condition would not be due to any nonwork factors. Therefore, these reports are insufficient to 

establish appellant’s claim or to create a conflict with the report of Dr. Curcin. 

Appellant did not submit any additional medical evidence following the Board’s prior 

decision. The Board finds that the medical evidence does not establish that appellant has a L2-3 

herniated disc condition causally related to her employment. 

 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 her condition was caused, precipitated, or aggravated by her employment is 

sufficient to establish causal relationship.11 Causal relationships must be established by 

rationalized medical opinion evidence. As noted the medical evidence is insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim. Consequently, OWCP therefore properly found that appellant did not meet 

her burden of proof in establishing her claim. 

On appeal appellant disagrees with OWCP’s decision denying her claim for 

compensation and noted that she submitted sufficient evidence to establish her claim. As noted 

above, the medical evidence does not establish that appellant’s diagnosed conditions were 

causally related to her employment. Reports from appellant’s physicians failed to provide 

medical rationale explaining how appellant’s diagnosed medical conditions were caused or 

aggravated by her employment duties. As noted above, the Board finds that the weight of the 

medical evidence rests with the well-rationalized opinion of Dr. Curcin to whom appellant was 

referred for a second opinion examination and opined that appellant’s herniated disc condition 

was not work related. 

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 therefore finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof in establishing 

that she developed a low back condition while in the performance of duty. 

 10 Jimmie H. Duckett, supra note 8.

11 See Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 26, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 18, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board