United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

W.P., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Page, AZ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1354 

Issued: October 20, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 1, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 8, 2015 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.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish an occupational 

disease causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 Appellant submitted new evidence on appeal. However, the Board cannot consider evidence that was not before 

OWCP at the time of its final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 14, 2014 appellant, then a 55-year-old clerk, filed an occupational disease claim 

(Form CA-2) alleging that he strained his lower right back by lifting parcels and trays of mail. 

He stated that he had a slight pain worsened over time. Appellant noted becoming aware of his 

condition on April 4, 2014. He stopped work on April 7, 2014 and returned on April 10, 2014. 

The employing establishment challenged the claim, stating that the medical evidence indicated 

that appellant’s injury occurred at home. 

In April 15 and 17, 2014 letters, the employing establishment alleged that appellant had a 

preexisting low back condition that was reinjured in a nonwork-related incident occurring at his 

home. 

In an April 23, 2014 letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish that he actually experienced the alleged employment factors. It advised 

him to provide medical evidence including a physician’s opinion, supported by a medical 

explanation, as to how work factors caused or aggravated a diagnosed condition. 

OWCP received an April 7, 2014 report from Dr. Raymond Holsten, Board-certified in 

family and geriatric medicine.3 Dr. Holsten noted that appellant presented with lower back pain 

and sciatica symptoms “over a month ago.” Although appellant’s condition had improved, he 

“twisted [it] again while working around his house.” His current complaints included right-sided 

back pain with radiation into the posterior thigh and calf. Physical examination revealed 

posterior tenderness to palpation bilaterally from L3 to L5. X-rays revealed no fracture. 

Dr. Holsten diagnosed sciatica and recommended physical therapy. 

An April 15, 2014 employing establishment incident report reflects that appellant was 

lifting 11- to 20-pound trays of mail and tubs of flats on April 4, 2014. Appellant felt a twinge in 

his back, but continued to work throughout the day. He sought medical attention on April 7, 

2014 for lower back strain. 

Appellant provided an April 16, 2014 physical therapy report indicating that he began 

experiencing lower back and right leg pain on April 4, 2014. He noted a history of back pain 

from a work-related injury in 1991 and another incident “some years later.” Other physical 

therapy reports dated April 17 to May 1, 2014 documented appellant’s progression through 

physical therapy. 

On April 28, 2014 appellant presented for a follow-up examination with Dr. Holsten for 

continued right lumbar and radicular pain. Dr. Holsten reported that appellant reinjured his 

lower back on April 17, 2014. Physical examination revealed posterior tenderness with 

palpation of the bilateral lumbar spine from L2 to L5. Dr. Holsten diagnosed consistent lumbago 

and ordered a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. In an April 28, 2014 Family and 

Medical Leave Act (FMLA) form, appellant’s duties were described as distributing mail and 

packages to customers. Dr. Holsten recorded April 4, 2014 as the date of injury and noted that 

appellant required intermittent time off to complete a course in physical therapy. 

 3

 OWCP had previously received an incomplete copy of the report. 
3

By report dated April 30, 2014, Dr. Robert Aizenstein, a Board-certified diagnostic 

radiologist, noted findings from a lumbar MRI scan. His impressions included moderate 

bilateral neural foraminal stenosis at L4-5 secondary to a small disc bulge and facet arthrosis, 

and mild degenerative disc disease and facet arthrosis at several additional levels, but with no 

other significant canal or foraminal compromise. 

In a May 5, 2014 report, Dr. Holsten related that appellant was seen on February 24 and 

April 7, 17, and 28, 2014 for continued lumbar midline pain and paraspinous, with radiation on 

occasion to the right thigh/calf and foot. An April 8, 2014 x-ray revealed significant facet 

arthropathy at L5-S1. Dr. Holsten noted that appellant’s pain was recently exacerbated by lifting 

and prolonged standing at work. He diagnosed degenerative disc disease and right-sided 

sciatica, opining that the conditions were “likely exacerbated by work activities.” 

A May 29, 2014 work status note bearing an illegible signature provided that appellant 

could return to duty on June 2, 2014. 

In a July 9, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding the medical evidence 

insufficient to establish that appellant’s condition was causally related to his employment.4

 

On July 15, 2014 appellant requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative. A hearing was held on February 13, 2015. Appellant testified that he was lifting 

trays of mail in April 2014, and felt a twinge in his back. The pain progressively worsened and 

appellant was placed in a light-duty position. According to appellant, on April 17, 2014, he bent 

down to pick up a package and “hurt [his] back even worse.” 

In a February 27, 2015 report, Dr. Holsten reported that appellant suffered from low back 

pain for months prior to filing his claim. He opined that appellant’s condition was exacerbated 

by lifting heavy objects at work on April 17, 2014. This, in turn, caused evidence of sciatic 

nerve irritation. Dr. Holsten opined that appellant’s worsening lower back pain and “nerve 

compression symptoms [were] a direct result of a work[-]related injury on” April 17, 2014. 

In a March 17, 2015 letter, the employing establishment reiterated its controversion of the 

claim. 

On May 8, 2015 an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the July 9, 2014 decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking compensation under FECA has the burden of establishing the 

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

evidence,5

 including that he or she is an employee within the meaning of FECA6 and that a claim 

 4

 The employing establishment, in a July 15, 2014 letter, advised appellant to return to full duty as OWCP denied 

his claim. 

5 J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 57 (1968). 

6 See M.H., 59 ECAB 461 (2008); see 5 U.S.C. § 8101(1). 
4

was filed within the applicable time limitation.7

 The employee must also establish that he or she 

sustained an injury in the performance of duty as alleged and that his or her disability for work, if 

any, was causally related to the employment injury.8

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in a claim for 

occupational disease, an employee must submit: (1) a factual statement identifying employment 

factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or 

condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition 

for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed 

condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the employee.9

 

Causal relationship is a medical issue10 and the medical evidence generally required to 

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence. 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 

identified by the employee.11

ANALYSIS 

The record supports that appellant’s duties included lifting parcels and trays of mail. The 

Board, however, finds that appellant failed to submit medical evidence sufficient to establish a 

causal relationship between his federal employment duties and his lower back condition. 

Appellant submitted multiple reports from Dr. Holsten dated April 7, 2014 to 

February 27, 2015. In these reports, Dr. Holsten diagnosed degenerative disc disease, right-sided 

sciatica, and lumbago. His most contemporaneous report, his April 7, 2014 report, attributed 

appellant’s symptoms to a nonwork-related incident when he twisted his back at home. 

Dr. Holsten did not indicate that work factors contributed to appellant’s condition in any way. In 

his May 5, 2014 report, Dr. Holsten noted that appellant’s sciatica was “likely” exacerbated by 

work activities, such as prolonged standing and lifting. The Board notes that this report is 

vague

12 and failed to medically explain the pathophysiological process by which such duties 

would have caused or aggravated appellant’s condition.13 In his February 27, 2015 statement, 

 7 R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); see 5 U.S.C. § 8122. 

8 G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

9 See Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994). 

10 Mary J. Briggs, 37 ECAB 578 (1986). 

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

12 See T.H., Docket No. 15-311 (issued June 2, 2015) (physician’s opinion that employee’s injury was “most 

likely” attributable to work factors was considered speculative and insufficient to establish claim); Ricky E. Storms, 

52 ECAB 349 (2001) (medical opinions which are speculative or equivocal in character have little probative value). 

13 Solomon Polen, 51 ECAB 341 (2000) (rationalized medical evidence must relate specific employment factors 

identified by the claimant to the claimant’s condition, with stated reasons by a physician). 
5

Dr. Holsten opined that appellant’s lower back pain with nerve compression symptoms was a 

direct result of lifting heavy objects on April 17, 2014. Dr. Holsten attributed appellant’s lower 

back injury to a traumatic incident from a single occurrence on April 17, 2014, rather than an 

occupational injury, as alleged by appellant in his claim.14 Moreover, Dr. Holsten again failed to 

explain how heavy lifting would have caused or contributed to the diagnosed condition. The 

need for a clear rationale is particularly important in this case considering the preexisting lower 

back injuries, degenerative disc disease, and the nonwork-related incident.15 Dr. Holsten also did 

not attempt to clarify the inconsistency in his initial April 7, 2014 report which attributed 

appellant’s condition to a twisting incident at home and his later reports which suggested that 

work activities contributed to his condition.16 

Other medical reports of record are of limited probative value as they do not provide an 

opinion on the causal relationship between appellant’s work duties and his injury.17 The physical 

therapy reports do not constitute competent medical evidence as physical therapists are not 

considered physicians as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2).18

On appeal, appellant refers to an OWCP-developed back injury incurred in 2000, 

evidence of which is not before the Board on appeal. The Board notes that the issue on appeal is 

whether appellant sustained a new occupational disease in the performance of duty. For the 

reasons stated above, the Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument as part of a formal 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 did not meet his burden of proof to establish an 

occupational disease causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

 14 A traumatic injury means a condition of the body caused by a specific event or incident, or series of events or 

incidents, within a single workday or shift. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). An occupational disease is defined as a condition 

produced by the work environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q). 

15 See M.W., Docket No. 15-15 (issued February 24, 2015). 

16 See S.S., 59 ECAB 315 (2008) (the Board has held that contemporaneous evidence is entitled to greater 

probative value than later evidence). 

17 See Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004) (medical evidence that does not provide any opinion regarding the 

cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value). 

18 The term physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, 

and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law. 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); L.B., 

Docket No. 13-1253 (issued September 18, 2013) (physical therapists do not qualify as physicians under FECA and, 

therefore, their medical reports do not qualify as probative medical evidence, unless such medical reports are 

countersigned by a physician). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 8, 2015 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 20, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board