United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.R., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, JOINT 

MUNITIONS & LETHALITY COMMAND, 

Rock Island, IL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1118 

Issued: November 7, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Joseph E. Allman, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 5, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a November 10, 

2015 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.3

 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. 

3

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP after the November 10, 2015 decision 

was issued. The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its 

final decision. Therefore, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review this additional evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish that his cervical 

condition is causally related to a March 4, 2014 employment incident. 

On appeal, counsel contends that the injury to appellant’s neck is obvious and is the kind 

of injury where minimal medical evidence is required. He further argues that appellant 

submitted substantial uncontroverted medical evidence that he sustained a serious work injury to 

his neck on March 4, 2014. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 18, 2014 appellant, a 46-year-old explosives handler, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he sustained a cervical injury on March 4, 2014 as a result of a 

coworker jerking back the chair he was sitting on at work. He reported that he was sitting in a 

desk chair when his coworker, P.I., came up behind him and jerked the chair backwards and then 

thrust it forward very forcefully causing injury. The employing establishment stated that 

appellant had a preexisting degenerative cervical spine condition that was discovered on 

December 30, 2013, with symptoms commencing on December 19, 2013, for which OWCP 

denied a previous claim under file number xxxxxx862.4

In an April 4, 2014 letter, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim, 

reiterating that he had a preexisting cervical condition as of December 2013 and OWCP had 

denied his previous claim. 

A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan dated January 10, 2014 revealed cervical 

spondylosis at C4-5, C5-6, and C6-7 and active inflammation at C5-6 with marrow edema 

involving the endplates. 

In a March 4, 2014 report Dr. Kevin Moore, a Board-certified emergency medicine 

physician, diagnosed cervical strain. He reported that appellant had been sitting in a chair when 

someone jerked the seat back causing him increased pain to the left side of the neck. 

On April 2, 2014 Dr. John Gorup, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed 

osteoarthritis, herniated cervical disc, cervical spondylosis with myelopathy, and cervical 

radiculopathy. He asserted that appellant had a “three-month history of significantly worsening 

neck and left upper arm pain” and had been seen in the emergency room a couple of times. 

Dr. Gorup also indicated that appellant previously had anti-inflammatories, muscle relaxants, 

pain pills, chiropractic therapy, physical therapy, and interventional pain procedures, and nothing 

offered relief. 

In a May 8, 2014 report, Dr. Jeffrey A. Beck, a Board-certified physiatrist, diagnosed 

cervical disc degeneration, cervical spondylosis, cervical spine stenosis, cervicalgia, and cervical 

radiculopathy. He explained that appellant was seen on January 10, 2014 for a work injury that 

occurred on December 23, 2013 while he was operating a vehicle at work. Appellant reported a 

 4

 Claim number xxxxxx862 was not accepted by OWCP. It is not before the Board on the present appeal. 
3

large jarring incident which subsequently resulted in severe pain. A January 10, 2014 MRI scan 

demonstrated active inflammation/edema at C5-6 with endplate marrow changes consistent with 

an acute injury. Appellant underwent a left C6 and C7 transforaminal epidural steroid injection 

(TFESI) on January 15, 2014 which provided some mild relief, but continued to experience 

moderate-to-severe neck pain on February 25, 2014 at which time Dr. Beck opted to repeat the 

epidural steroid injection and consult a surgeon for persistent neck and left arm pain. He 

reported having a chair pulled out from underneath him on March 4, 2014 on the day prior to the 

injection on March 5, 2014. Dr. Beck asserted that the injection was not effective and appellant 

reported severe neck pain since the chair incident at work. A repeat MRI scan was obtained 

which demonstrated progression of the cervical marrow edema with increased cervical spine 

narrowing and new spinal cord signal abnormalities. Appellant underwent an anterior cervical 

discectomy and fusion (ACDF) at C4-5 and C5-6. Dr. Beck opined that he believed, with a 

reasonable degree of medical certainty, that appellant’s injury was sustained as a direct result of 

a work injury and that his initial work injury was exacerbated by a second work injury. 

In a September 3, 2014 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of his claim 

and afforded him 30 days to submit additional evidence and respond to its inquiries. 

Subsequently, appellant submitted an accident report dated March 4, 2014 and reports 

dated March 18 and 28, 2014 from Dr. Beck who opined that appellant’s cervical condition was 

not related to common arthritic changes, but rather directly related to a work injury. He also 

submitted progress reports dated April 30 through August 6, 2014 from Dr. Gorup. 

By decision dated October 3, 2014, OWCP denied the claim finding that appellant failed 

to submit sufficient medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between his cervical 

condition and the March 4, 2014 employment incident. 

On October 14, 2014 counsel requested an oral hearing before the Branch of Hearings 

and Review and submitted a February 10, 2015 report from Dr. Beck who reiterated his opinion 

that appellant’s symptoms were caused by two separate work injuries. Dr. Beck opined that the 

first work injury, which occurred on December 23, 2013, was related to significant pounding 

while operating a piece of equipment over rough terrain which caused bone trauma (edema) and 

a moderate disc protrusion (cervical spinal stenosis and cervical radiculopathy). The second 

work injury occurred on March 4, 2014 when appellant’s coworker sharply pulled a chair back 

that he was sitting in at the time, which exacerbated the bone trauma (edema) and caused 

progression of the disc protrusion from moderate to severe. Dr. Beck further opined that the 

second work injury caused spinal cord damage (cervical myelopathy). 

A telephonic oral hearing was held on March 25, 2015. Thereafter, appellant submitted 

additional evidence including witness statements dated March 5 and 30, 2014. He further 

submitted a copy of an April 7, 2015 decision from an OWCP hearing representative regarding 

his prior claim under file number xxxxxx862. 

By decision dated May 14, 2015, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the prior 

decision. 
4

On October 14, 2015 counsel requested reconsideration and appellant submitted an 

October 7, 2015 narrative statement reiterating the factual history of his claim. He also 

resubmitted the March 4, 2014 emergency room report from Dr. Moore, the February 10, 2015 

report from Dr. Beck, and the witness statements dated March 5 and 30, 2014. 

By decision dated November 10, 2015, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

applicable time limitation period of FECA, that an injury5

 was sustained in the performance of 

duty, as alleged, and that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed 

is causally related to the employment injury.6

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. 

A fact of injury determination is based on two elements. First, the employee must submit 

sufficient evidence to establish that he actually experienced the employment incident at the time, 

place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit sufficient evidence, 

generally only in the form of medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused 

a personal injury. An employee may establish that the employment incident occurred as alleged 

but fail to show that his or her condition relates to the employment incident.7

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence generally required to 

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. The opinion of the 

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, 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 employee.8

ANALYSIS 

OWCP has accepted that the employment incident of March 4, 2014 occurred at the time, 

place, and in the manner alleged. The issue is whether appellant’s cervical condition resulted 

 5

 OWCP regulations define 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. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 

6 See T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). 

7 Id.

8 Id.
5

from the March 4, 2014 employment incident. The Board finds that appellant did not meet his 

burden of proof to establish causal relationship. 

In his reports, Dr. Beck diagnosed cervical disc degeneration, cervical spondylosis, 

cervical spine stenosis, cervicalgia, and cervical radiculopathy. He opined that appellant’s 

cervical condition was not related to common arthritic changes, but rather directly related to a 

work injury. Dr. Beck concluded that the first work injury occurred on December 23, 2013 and 

caused bone trauma (edema) and a moderate disc protrusion (cervical spinal stenosis and cervical 

radiculopathy). The second work injury occurred on March 4, 2014 when appellant’s coworker 

sharply pulled a chair back and then forward on which he was sitting, which exacerbated the 

bone trauma (edema) and caused progression of the disc protrusion from moderate to severe. 

Dr. Beck further opined that the second work injury caused spinal cord damage (cervical 

myelopathy). The Board finds that Dr. Beck failed to provide sufficient medical rationale 

explaining the mechanism of how being sharply maneuvered while sitting in a chair at work on 

March 4, 2014 caused appellant’s cervical condition. Dr. Beck noted that appellant’s condition 

occurred while he was at work, but such generalized statements do not establish causal 

relationship because they merely repeat appellant’s allegations and are unsupported by adequate 

medical rationale explaining how his physical activity at work actually caused or aggravated the 

diagnosed conditions.9

 The need for rationale is particularly important as the evidence of record 

indicates that appellant had a preexisting cervical condition. Dr. Beck’s opinion was based, in 

part, on temporal correlation. However, the Board has held that neither the mere fact that a 

disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment nor the belief that the disease 

or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or incidents is sufficient to 

establish a causal relationship.10 Dr. Beck did not otherwise sufficiently explain the reasons why 

diagnostic testing and examination findings led him to conclude that the March 4, 2014 incident 

at work caused or contributed to the diagnosed conditions. Moreover, matters pertaining to any 

claim for an injury occurring on or around December 23, 2013 are not before the Board in the 

present appeal. Thus, the Board finds that the reports from Dr. Beck are insufficient to establish 

that appellant sustained an employment-related injury on March 4, 2014. 

Dr. Moore diagnosed cervical strain and attributed appellant’s condition to a March 4, 

2014 incident. However, he did not provide any medical rationale explaining how being sharply 

maneuvered while sitting in a chair at work on March 4, 2014 caused or aggravated appellant’s 

cervical condition. Thus, the Board finds that the report from Dr. Moore is insufficient to 

establish that appellant sustained an employment-related injury on March 4, 2014. 

On April 2, 2014 Dr. Gorup diagnosed osteoarthritis, herniated cervical disc, cervical 

spondylosis with myelopathy, and cervical radiculopathy and noted that appellant had a “threemonth history of significantly worsening neck and left upper arm pain.” The Board has held that 

medical evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition 

 9 See K.W., Docket No. 10-98 (issued September 10, 2010). 

10 See E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 2010). 
6

is of limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship.11 Thus, appellant has not met his 

burden of proof with this evidence. 

Other medical evidence of record, including diagnostic testing reports, is of limited 

probative value and is insufficient to establish the claim as it does not specifically address 

whether appellant’s diagnosed conditions are causally related to the March 4, 2014 work 

incident.12

On appeal, counsel contends that the injury to appellant’s neck is obvious and is the kind 

of injury where minimal medical evidence is required. He further argues that appellant 

submitted substantial uncontroverted medical evidence that he sustained a serious work injury to 

his neck on March 4, 2014. As noted above, appellant bears the burden of proof to establish an 

employment-related injury and he may establish that the employment incident occurred as 

alleged, yet fail to show that his condition relates to the employment incident.13 The Board finds 

that OWCP properly reviewed all of the medical evidence of record. As appellant has not 

submitted any rationalized medical evidence to support his allegation that he sustained an injury 

causally related to the March 4, 2014 employment incident, he has failed to meet his burden of 

proof to establish a 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 has not met his burden of proof to establish that his 

cervical condition is causally related to a March 4, 2014 employment incident. 

 11 See C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009). 

12 See K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); Linda I. Sprague, 48 ECAB 386 (1997) (medical 

evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative 

value on the issue of causal relationship). 

13 See supra notes 5 to 7. 
7

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 10, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: November 7, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board