United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

F.G., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Edison, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1333 

Issued: December 2, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 22, 2014 appellant, through his attorney, filed a timely appeal of a February 10, 

2014 merits 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 a traumatic back 

injury due to the accepted employment incident on April 25, 2011. 

On appeal counsel argued that the reports of Dr. Mark A.P. Filippone, a Board-certified 

physiatrist, met appellant’s burden of proof or in the alternative required OWCP to undertake 

further development of appellant’s claim. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been on appeal before the Board.2 The facts and circumstances 

of the case as set out in the prior decision are adopted herein by reference. The relevant facts 

follow. 

On May 2, 2011 appellant, then a 57-year-old electronic maintenance technician, filed a 

traumatic injury claim alleging that on April 25, 2011 he bent over to unlock the lock on a mail 

processing machine and ruptured discs in his back. By decision dated June 7, 2011, OWCP 

denied appellant’s claim for a traumatic injury finding that he had not submitted medical 

evidence based on a proper history of injury establishing that he sustained an injury due to his 

accepted employment incident of bending over to release a lock. Counsel requested an oral 

hearing, before an OWCP hearing representative. 

Appellant submitted a narrative statement dated June 24, 2011 claiming that on April 25, 

2011 at 3:00 p.m., he was notified that due to a shortage of maintenance mechanics he was to 

perform a daily maintenance route on four delivery bar code sorter machines, two of which had 

to be completed by 6:00 p.m. To complete this assignment, he had to remove all items from the 

perimeter of the machines, bring the assigned tools including the vacuum cleaner to the 

machines, open all locked doors and vacuum the internal components while working in a 

crouched or kneeling position. Appellant had completed these tasks on two machines by 6:00 

p.m. and was in the process of removing the maintenance lock from the circuit breaker when he 

stood up and immediately felt severe pain in his lower back in the vicinity of his left kidney. 

While waiting for this pain to resolve he felt a numbing sensation that extended from his right 

knee to his right ankle and started to lose sensation in his right foot and leg. 

Dr. Filippone completed a report on October 5, 2011 noting that he reviewed appellant’s 

June 24, 2011 statement and diagnosed low back derangement with clear evidence of internal 

derangement of the lumbar spine and obvious evidence of cervical radiculitis. Dr. Filippone 

stated that the injury on April 25, 2011 was the culmination of all of appellant’s back injuries and 

was “quite literally the straw that broke the camel’s back....” 

Appellant testified at the oral hearing on October 11, 2011 that his duties included 

cleaning postal machines. This task involved moving a tool case weighing 40 pounds as well as 

a separate toolbox weighing 200 pounds, a toolbar weighing 25 pounds, a rolling a vacuum 

cleaner weighing 20 pounds and moving the letter equipment from around and atop the machine. 

Appellant stated that letter equipment included carts weighing between 400 and 550 pounds 

which had to be pushed away from the machine. He stated that his back pain occurred after 

completing two of the four machines assigned to him while releasing a maintenance lock on the 

circuit breaker. Appellant stated that he pulled the circuit breaker and stood up. He then 

experienced pain in his back and a then a few minutes later numbness going down his right leg. 

By decision dated November 23, 2011, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

prior decision of June 7, 2011, finding that appellant failed to submit sufficient medical opinion 

evidence, based on a proper history of injury, to establish a causal relationship between 

appellant’s diagnosed back condition and his employment incident of April 25, 2011. 

 2

 Docket No. 13-40 (issued May 7, 2013). 
3

Counsel requested reconsideration on December 5, 2011. By decision dated June 27, 

2012, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision finding that the medical reports did not 

provide a consistent mechanism of injury and are insufficient to establish that the employment 

injury occurred as alleged. The Board reviewed appellant’s case on May 7, 20133

 and found that 

appellant had not submitted the necessary medical opinion evidence to establish that his 

employment activities on April 25, 2011 resulted in his diagnosed conditions. The Board found 

that Dr. Filippone stated that he had reviewed appellant’s history of back injuries as well as his 

description of employment activities on April 25, 2011. He diagnosed low back derangement 

and stated that appellant’s current condition was a culmination of his previous back injuries. He 

opined that the April 25, 2011 injury was “the straw that broke the camel’s back.” The Board 

found that this report did not provide the necessary medical explanation of how appellant’s work 

activities caused or contributed to his diagnosed condition and without some medical reasoning, 

this report was insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. The Board concluded that 

Dr. Filippone did not explain how or why appellant’s activities would result in his diagnosed 

condition and affirmed the June 27, 2012 decision of OWCP. 

On November 13, 2013 counsel requested reconsideration. He submitted an additional 

report from Dr. Filippone dated October 31, 2013 in which Dr. Filippone related that on 

April 25, 2011 appellant was pulled from his position of electronic technician and ordered to 

work as a maintenance mechanic. Appellant was told to work on two machines, each 100 feet 

long with 25 set of double steel doors. He was required to unlock and vacuum the interior of 

each machine which included reaching in with a vacuum probe wand to the top of the machine 

and then squatting down or kneeling to vacuum the bottom of the machine. Appellant was 

required to complete this task in 60 minutes rather than the normal allotted time of between 75 

and 90 minutes. He also pushed a 150-pound cart, wore a 20-pound tool belt and dragged a 

vacuum cleaner hose. In addition, there were various items scattered in front of the machine 

doors weighing between 50 and 600 pounds which appellant had to move to complete his 

assigned task. Dr. Filippone concluded that appellant was working at an accelerated rate in a job 

beyond his usual physical requirements. He stated, “About 50 minutes into this literally backbreaking work, he began to feel back pain but he continued working for another hour or so, but 

he never made it to the two-hour break.” Dr. Filippone stated, “As described there was rapid 

flexion/extension, rotation, squatting, stooping, reaching and twisting at a very rapid 

nonphysiologic pain in a condensed period of time in a condensed space in a man not adequately 

physically acclimatized to do this repetitive rapid task and this overloaded and herniated his 

lumbar spine.” 

By decision dated February 10, 2014, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision 

finding that Dr. Filippone did not explain how the mechanism of appellant’s rapid 

flexion/extension, rotation and squatting caused lumbar herniations. It further found that 

Dr. Filippone had not explained how the lumbar herniations were the direct result of appellant’s 

April 25, 2011 employment incident. 

 3 Id. 
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 has the burden of establishing the essential 

elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence, 

including the fact that the individual is an “employee of the United States” within the meaning of 

FECA and that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time limitation period of FECA, 

that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that any disability or 

specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment 

injury.5 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.6

OWCP defines a traumatic injury as, “[A] condition of the body caused by a specific 

event or incident, or series of events or incidents, within a single workday or shift. Such 

condition must be caused by external force, including stress or strain which is identifiable as to 

time and place of occurrence and member or function of the body affected.”7 To determine 

whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, it must 

first be determined whether a “fact of injury” has been established. First, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that he and she actually experienced the employment 

incident at the time, place and in the manner alleged.8 Second, the employee must submit 

sufficient evidence, generally only in the form a medical evidence, to establish that the 

employment incident caused a personal injury.9 A medical report is of limited probative value 

on a given medical question if it is unsupported by medical rationale.10 Medical rationale 

includes a physician’s detailed opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship 

between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment activity. The 

opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the 

claim, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical reasoning 

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

employment activity or factors identified by the claimant.11

ANALYSIS 

Appellant filed a notice of traumatic injury alleging that he sustained a back injury on 

April 25, 2011. He submitted narrative statements describing his employment duties on that date 

which OWCP has accepted as factual. OWCP denied his claim on the grounds that the medical 

evidence was not sufficiently detailed and well reasoned to establish a causal relationship 

 4

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-1893. 

5 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383, 388 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 41 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

6 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

7

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 

8 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

9 J.Z., 58 ECAB 529 (2007). 

10 T.F., 58 ECAB 128 (2006). 

11 A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006). 
5

between his diagnosed conditions and his accepted employment incident. Appellant requested 

reconsideration and submitted an additional report from Dr. Filippone addressing his alleged 

employment-related condition. In his October 31, 2013 report, Dr. Filippone provided a detailed 

description of appellant’s employment duties on April 25, 2011. 

The Board finds that this report is not based on an accurate history of injury and therefore 

lacks probative value. While Dr. Filippone provided a detailed description of appellant’s 

employment duties, his report contradicted appellant’s statements that he had no back pain until 

completing two machines around 6:00 p.m. Dr. Filippone described a gradual onset of back pain 

50 minutes into appellant’s assigned tasks. This description does not comport with appellant’s 

statements of sudden pain. As Dr. Filippone’s report is not factually accurate, it cannot 

constitute the weight of the medical evidence and meet appellant’s burden of proof in 

establishing his traumatic injury claim. The Board finds that the factual deficits in 

Dr. Filippone’s report are such that his report does not require further development by OWCP as 

argued on appeal. 

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 the medical evidence is not based on a proper factual background 

and due to these deficits cannot establish appellant’s traumatic injury claim. 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 10, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.12

Issued: December 2, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 12 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge, participated in the original decision but was no longer a member of the 

Board effective November 16, 2015.