United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

Y.C., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Belmar, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1592 

Issued: December 27, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

James D. Muirhead, Esq., for the appellant1

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 August 1, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an April 26, 

2016 merit decision 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 over the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

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

related to the accepted December 14, 2013 employment incident. 

 1

 In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An 

attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject 

to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation. 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 27, 2013 appellant, then a 53-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 

December 14, 2013 while in the performance of duty. He reported on the claim form that he was 

rear-ended by another vehicle. The record indicates that appellant returned to work on 

December 17, 2013, and then was off work from January 7 to May 18, 2014. 

OWCP advised appellant on January 9, 2014 that medical evidence was necessary to 

substantiate his claim. It requested that he submit a narrative report from his treating physician 

which provided a diagnosis and established causal relationship between the diagnosed condition 

and the employment incident. Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit this additional 

evidence. 

Appellant received emergency room treatment on December 14, 2013.3 Diagnostic tests 

included a left shoulder x-ray that was reported as normal by Dr. Leonard Zawodniak, a 

radiologist, and a cervical spine x-ray that Dr. Zawodniak indicated showed degenerative 

changes with no fracture. 

In a report dated January 7, 2014, Dr. David Dickerson, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, reported that appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and his left shoulder hit 

the seat. He reported that appellant had pain in the left shoulder, and left side of the neck, with 

paresthesia in the arm. Dr. Dickerson provided results on examination and diagnosed brachial 

neuritis or radiculitis, and cervical disc degeneration. He also completed a duty status report 

(Form CA-17) indicating appellant was totally disabled for work. 

By decision dated February 11, 2014, OWCP denied the claim for compensation. It 

accepted that a motor vehicle accident occurred as alleged, but found the medical evidence was 

insufficient to establish a diagnosed injury causally related to the December 14, 2013 

employment incident. 

Appellant, through counsel, requested a hearing before an OWCP hearing representative 

on March 11, 2014. A hearing was held on September 12, 2014. 

The medical evidence submitted included a February 17, 2014 report from Dr. John 

Coccaro, a Board-certified anesthesiologist, who indicated that appellant was involved in a motor 

vehicle accident on December 14, 2013. Dr. Coccaro provided results on examination and 

diagnosed cervical radiculitis, displaced cervical disc without myelopathy, and cervical spinal 

stenosis. 

Appellant also submitted treatment reports from March 11 to June 20, 2014 from 

Dr. Kulbir Walia, Board-certified in pain medicine. In the March 11, 2014 report, Dr. Walia 

provided a history that appellant was rear-ended at work three months earlier and now reported 

left neck pain radiating down the left arm. He indicated that a magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) scan dated January 18, 2014 had shown disc osteophyte complex at C3-7. Dr. Walia 

 3

 There is a hospital form report that is difficult to read and provides an illegible signature. 
3

provided results on examination and diagnosed cervical herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP) and 

cervical radiculopathy. 

By decision dated November 3, 2014, a hearing representative4 affirmed the February 11, 

2014 decision. The hearing representative found the medical evidence was insufficient to 

establish the claim for compensation. 

Appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration on April 9, 2015. Counsel noted 

that the November 3, 2014 decision was issued by a different hearing representative. As to the 

medical evidence, appellant submitted a March 1, 2015 report from Dr. Walia, who reviewed 

appellant’s treatment and the diagnostic studies. Dr. Walia diagnosed cervical HNP, cervical 

radiculopathy, myalgia, and myositis. He opined that “the causality of neck pain radiating down 

the left arm involving the left first and second digits is established to the motor vehicle accident” 

of December 14, 2013, noting that appellant denied having prior symptoms. Dr. Walia further 

opined: 

“The acceleration and deceleration forces suffered by the neck and spine at the 

time of the impact led to the development of pain secondary to trauma to the soft 

tissue as well as spine. As documented, [appellant] suffered from myofascial 

pain, cervical facet joint[-]related pain, and cervical radicular pain secondary to 

cervical spine disc pathology. Even though MRI of the cervical spine completed 

on [January 18, 2014] revealed multilevel loss of normal disc height, [appellant] 

had not sought medical opinion and care for neck and left upper extremity 

symptoms until after the motor vehicle accident of review.” 

Dr. Walia indicated that appellant’s injuries were fixed and permanent, with periodic pain 

and discomfort, limitations, and restrictions of the cervical region. He noted that appellant’s 

condition would worsen with age, and future medical treatment may include physical therapy 

and possible surgery. 

By decision dated April 17, 2015, OWCP reviewed the merits and denied modification. 

It found the medical evidence was not sufficiently rationalized to establish the claim. 

On August 18, 2015 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. He submitted 

a May 29, 2015 report from Dr. Casey Lee, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Lee 

provided a history of a December 14, 2013 motor vehicle accident where appellant was rearended and there was a whiplash-type movement of the back and neck. He provided results on 

examination and diagnosed cervical spondylosis with left-side radiculopathy. In a note dated 

June 9, 2015, Dr. Lee reported that December 15, 2013 x-rays showed no significant abnormality 

of the cervical spine except flattened cervical lordosis. He also indicated that a cervical spine 

MRI scan dated January 18, 2014 showed mild degenerative changes. 

 4

 The decision indicated the hearing representative who presided over the September 12, 2014 hearing was no 

longer with the Branch of Hearings and Review, and the decision was written by another hearing representative. 
4

In a decision dated November 16, 2015, OWCP reviewed the case on its merits and 

denied modification. It found the medical evidence was insufficient to establish the claim for 

compensation. 

Appellant, through counsel, again requested reconsideration on February 12, 2016. He 

submitted a February 2, 2016 report from Dr. Lee. Dr. Lee opined, “this patient’s symptoms of 

neck pain and radicular symptoms to his arm are causally related to the accident of 

December 14, 2013. This patient has degenerative changes of the disc at C5-6 with bilateral 

neuroforaminal narrowing and moderate central canal narrowing. It is probable that this patient 

had some degenerative changes of the cervical spine prior to the accident, but the patient’s 

current symptoms are precipitated and aggravated by the accident.” 

By decision dated April 26, 2016, OWCP reviewed the merits and denied modification. 

It found the medical evidence was not sufficient to establish the claim for compensation. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

she sustained an injury while in the performance of duty.5 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. The second component is whether the employment incident caused a 

personal injury, and generally this can be established only by medical evidence.6

 

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence that is based on a complete 

factual and medical background, of reasonable medical certainty and supported by medical 

rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the 

specific employment factors identified by the claimant. The weight of medical evidence is 

determined by its reliability, its probative value, its convincing quality, the care of the analysis 

manifested and the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.7

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, appellant filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that he sustained 

injuries in a December 14, 2013 motor vehicle accident. He alleged that he was rear-ended by 

another vehicle while in the performance of duty OWCP has accepted that the incident occurred 

as alleged. 

The issue is whether the medical evidence is sufficient to establish an injury causally 

related to the December 14, 2013 motor vehicle accident. The Board has reviewed the medical 

 5 Melinda C. Epperly, 45 ECAB 196, 198 (1993); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.115. 

6 See John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354, 357 (1989). 

 7 Jennifer Atkerson, 55 ECAB 317, 319 (2004). 
5

evidence and finds it is sufficient to require further development. Appellant received emergency 

room medical treatment on December 14, 2013. Dr. Dickerson treated appellant on January 7, 

2014 and reported a history of the motor vehicle accident and diagnosed a brachial neuritis and 

cervical disc degeneration. In a February 17, 2014 report, Dr. Coccaro provided a history of the 

December 14, 2013 accident and diagnosed cervical radiculitis, displaced cervical disc without 

myelopathy, and cervical spinal stenosis. 

Appellant received treatment from Dr. Walia as of March 11, 2014. In a March 1, 2015 

report, Dr. Walia provided a history of treatment and opined that appellant had sustained cervical 

injuries with radiculopathy from the December 14, 2013 motor vehicle accident, noting 

acceleration and deceleration forces to the neck and spine. In a May 29, 2015 report, Dr. Lee 

noted a whiplash-type movement occurred with the December 14, 2013 accident and he 

diagnosed cervical spondylosis with left-side radiculopathy. In his February 2, 2016 report, 

Dr. Lee opined that the motor vehicle accident had aggravated the cervical degenerative 

condition. 

The medical record provides sufficient evidence supporting a cervical injury resulting 

from the December 14, 2013 motor vehicle accident to require OWCP to further develop the 

medical evidence on the issue of a diagnosed condition causally related to the employment 

incident.8

 Although appellant has the burden of proof to establish the essential elements of his 

claim, OWCP shares responsibility in the development of the evidence.9 On remand OWCP 

should further develop the medical evidence as necessary on the issue of causal relationship. 

After such further development as it deems appropriate, OWCP should issue a de novo decision 

with respect to appellant’s claim. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds the case is not in posture for decision and is remanded to OWCP for 

further development of the medical evidence. 

 8 See J.S., Docket No. 15-0282 (issued March 23, 2015) (medical evidence supporting an injury from a motor 

vehicle accident sufficient to require further development); B.G., Docket No. 12-1944 (issued April 9, 2013) 

(uncontroverted evidence supported causal relationship between motor vehicle accident and spinal conditions 

required further development of the evidence). 

9 See Udella Billups, 41 ECAB 260, 269 (1989). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated April 26, 2016 is set aside and the case remanded for further 

action consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: December 27, 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