United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.E., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, STENNIS 

SPACE CENTER, Hancock, MS, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0615 

Issued: October 3, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Debra Hauser, Esq., for the appellant1

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 February 11, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

January 11, 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 met his burden of proof to establish a back condition 

causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

 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

On appeal counsel asserts that the medical evidence of record establishes that being 

forced to sit in awkward positions aggravated appellant’s preexisting back condition. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 11, 2014 the employing establishment filed a traumatic injury claim (Form 

CA-1) for appellant. The claim form noted that the injury at issue occurred on April 16, 2014. 

The employing establishment added comments that appellant’s e-mail was illegible as to the 

cause of injury, other than not having an ergonomic chair caused further injury to his lumbar 

spine. Appellant had stopped work on April 18, 2014. The employing establishment indicated 

that appellant was provided assistance and an ergonomic survey had been scheduled but not 

completed. The form was signed by E.W., a supervisory contract specialist. 

In letters dated June 13, 2014, OWCP informed appellant of the evidence needed to 

support his claim and requested that the employing establishment respond. Appellant was 

informed of the necessity of providing medical evidence that included a physician’s opinion with 

a medical explanation as to how the reported work incident caused or aggravated a medical 

condition. 

Copies of e-mails between appellant and the employing establishment dated April 24 to 

June 17, 2014 were submitted. On April 24, 2014 appellant wrote to E.W. requesting an 

ergonomic chair. On June 11, 2014 T.W. of the employing establishment’s human resources 

office informed appellant that his Form CA-1 was being completed, but that OWCP needed a 

clear statement of how his injury occurred. Appellant replied that day, alleging that discs in his 

lower back were further injured which, his physician advised, was caused by not having an 

ergonomic chair or an ergonomic workplace study performed, and this caused his back to give 

out. He noted undergoing medical treatment and that his physician estimated that his recovery 

could take 3 to 12 weeks or longer. A second traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1), dated 

May 20, 2014, was not signed by the employing establishment. Appellant alleged that he injured 

his lumbar spine because he did not have a proper ergonomic chair and that this caused lumbar 

spondylosis at L4, L5, and S1 with foraminal stenosis at L4-5 and L5-S1. He also submitted a 

partially completed unsigned occupational disease claim (Form CA-2). Appellant noted having 

lumbar spondylosis with foraminal stenosis at L4-5 and L5-S1 and that he first became aware of 

the condition and its relationship to work on April 16, 2014. 

In a report dated April 24, 2014 Dr. Gilo Kawasaki, a Board-certified internist with the 

Veterans Health Administration (VA), noted that appellant had long-standing lower back pain, 

prone to episodic flares. He advised that appellant was recovering from such an episode and 

could return to unrestricted duty on Monday, April 28, 2014. A May 1, 2014 note from the VA 

with an illegible signature noted that appellant was seen at the physical medicine and 

rehabilitation clinic for severe back pain and would benefit from an ergonomic assessment. 

On a disability slip dated April 29, 2014, Dr. Richard J. Sanders, Jr., a Board-certified 

family physician, advised that appellant was undergoing treatment with a guarded prognosis and 

was on medical leave until further notice. On June 18, 2014 he prescribed an ergonomic work 

environment and seating to accommodate lumbar spine pain secondary to spondylosis and 

foraminal stenosis at L5-S1. Dr. Sanders noted on June 24, 2014 that appellant had been under 
3

his care beginning April 29, 2014 for lumbar disc disease and that he could return to work after 

physical therapy and rehabilitation. He noted that appellant was also under the care of a VA 

orthopedic surgeon and neurologists who would provide restrictions and recommend treatment. 

On May 16, 2014 Dr. Sanders prescribed physical therapy. He further related that appellant was 

under psychiatric care for workplace harassment and resultant anxiety, neurosis, and 

exacerbation of his lumbar condition by the work environment. Dr. Sanders advised that 

appellant was being seen by a cardiologist for angina pectoris and a release to work could not be 

determined. 

On May 21 and June 27, 2014 Dr. Sanders completed forms requesting a reasonable 

accommodation. On the May 21, 2014 form, he diagnosed anxiety and neurosis secondary to 

work harassment, noting that appellant was limited by chronic pain and this caused distraction 

from job duties. He indicated that appellant was further limited by prolonged sitting, standing, or 

complex decision making while on narcotic analgesics. Dr. Sanders advised that it would be 

inappropriate to attempt to accommodate appellant while he was in chronic pain and under the 

influence of narcotic medication, and that he could not return to work until fully recovered. On 

the June 27, 2014 form, he diagnosed lumbar spondylosis with foraminal stenosis and anxiety 

mood disorder, noting that appellant was restricted in bending, climbing, sitting, lifting, self-care, 

walking, performing manual tasks, and working, and was expected to be incapacitated for duty in 

the short term. Dr. Sanders advised that pain limited appellant’s ability to function properly, 

noting that he had complained of inadequate work seating and had aggravated a presumably 

preexisting lumbar spine condition. He further commented that appellant’s anxiety was 

associated with agitation, mood swings, and that people worked against him instead of with him. 

The employing establishment submitted an unsigned statement of controversion. This 

statement indicated that on April 16, 2014 appellant requested sick leave to address a back 

problem when reporting to work, but then continued to work several hours, including attending a 

meeting where he was questioned about communications with other personnel. The employing 

establishment continued that appellant was notified by several e-mails beginning on April 17, 

2014 regarding the requested ergonomic assessment, but that this could not be conducted as 

appellant did not return to work. It noted that Dr. Kawasaki advised that appellant could return 

to work without restriction on April 28, 2014. 

On July 17, 2014 appellant submitted a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for the 

period April 16, 2014 to present. However, only the first page of the form was completed. 

By decision dated July 18, 2014, OWCP denied the claim finding that, as appellant did 

not establish that the claimed events occurred as alleged, fact of injury was not established. 

On October 29, 2014 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and 

maintained that the evidence of record established that sitting in an improper chair aggravated 

appellant’s back condition. 

In an undated statement, appellant maintained that E.W. knew he was having back 

problems because appellant told him that he had service-connected herniated discs, that he 

observed that appellant started wearing a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) 

unit, and that he knew appellant was taking medication to treat muscle spasms. He indicated that 
4

he had asked E.W. numerous times for an ergonomic chair, but E.W. harassed him about this. 

Appellant related that he could only return to work if he had a proper chair for his serviceconnected injury, noting that not having a proper chair further damaged his back. He stated that 

he had not been informed of any ergonomic assessment. 

In response to an OWCP questionnaire dated October 17, 2014, appellant indicated that 

he told E.W. that he was injured and in a great deal of pain and needed to go to his doctor, and 

his only injury was that sustained at work. Appellant related that he still had radiating pain from 

the neck down both legs, and that physical therapy did not help. He was unable to stand for 

longer than 30 minutes and could sit in a chair for more than an hour. Appellant reported that he 

was a disabled veteran, but maintained that his current injury was due to not being provided a 

proper chair, which caused further damage to his spine. He stated that he had requested an 

ergonomic chair from E.W. on multiple occasions and was turned down. Appellant noted that 

E.W. came into his cubical and bumped his chair approximately three times, which injured his 

back, and he reported this to security. He concluded that he had never been given a reasonable 

accommodation and had not recovered from this injury. 

On July 18, 2014 Dr. Sanders noted seeing appellant for back pain. He related that 

appellant had seen an orthopedic surgeon who recommended surgery and epidural injections, and 

that appellant had been to the emergency room for difficulty breathing. Dr. Sanders listed 

appellant’s medications and diagnosed hypertension and lumbar spondylosis. In an October 2, 

2014 treatment note, he advised that after appellant’s first army enlistment, he was discharged 

due to L4-5 disc disease, pinched nerves in the neck, degenerative arthritis of both knees, and 

ankle fracture complications. Dr. Sanders continued that appellant later developed new low back 

pain that he felt was related to his work chair. He indicated that a magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) scan showed lumbar disc disease and lumbar spondylosis with presumed diagnosis of 

spondylosis aggravated by workplace ergonomics.3

 Physical therapy was not successful. 

Appellant was seen by Dr. James Butler, an orthopedist, a Dr. Houser, a neurologist, and a 

Dr. Braxton, a physiatrist, and was under treatment by a psychiatrist for an anxiety disorder 

related to back pain. Dr. Sanders reported a review of systems, noted that appellant complained 

of chronic lower back pain, described his history, and medications. He described general 

findings of the head, eyes, ears, nose, oral cavity, throat, neck, lymph nodes, and heart. 

Dr. Sanders did not note examining appellant’s extremities or his back. He diagnosed lumbar 

spondylosis and failed back syndrome. 

In undated statements, former coworkers J.E., R.L., and R.C. indicated that they worked 

with appellant at a previous command where he had a chair with full back support, did not 

complain about his back, and worked without limitations. 

On November 4, 2014 Dr. Sanders completed a medical summary of appellant’s care. He 

reported that on April 29, 2014 appellant presented with severe lower back pain, severe anxiety, 

and chest pain, stating that he had a difficult time concentrating at work due to back pain, and 

that he had requested an ergonomic chair and an accommodating workplace but the request was 

denied. Appellant described ongoing harassment and stopped work when the accommodation 

 3

 A copy of a lumbar spine MRI scan is not found in the case record. 
5

request was denied. Dr. Sanders noted that appellant had preexisting service-connected disc 

disease at L4-5 which became acutely active and was exacerbated at work. He again reported 

MRI scan findings, and that appellant was seen in consultation by Dr. Butler, Dr. Braxton, 

neurology, and a psychologist, and that in September 2014 Dr. Kawasaki recommended that he 

not work. Dr. Sanders concluded that appellant’s prognosis was poor. 

In a merit decision dated January 16, 2015, OWCP denied modification of the prior 

decision. It noted that appellant did not provide a statement explaining how the claimed 

April 16, 2014 injury occurred. 

On February 11, 2015 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. She 

maintained that because appellant’s work chair lacked proper lumbar support, his preexisting 

back condition was exacerbated, and therefore fact of injury was established. Appellant 

submitted copies of e-mails previously of record. 

In a sworn affidavit dated February 6, 2015, appellant asserted that his personal 

statements and Dr. Sanders’ November 6, 2014 report supported his claim. He further 

maintained that the VA orthopedic doctor also agreed that he needed an ergonomic chair or 

ergonomic study performed, and that his injury occurred because he was not given a proper chair 

with back support which exacerbated a previous condition. 

By decision dated March 5, 2015, OWCP modified its previous decisions. It noted that 

the claim was now considered an occupational disease claim because appellant described an 

injury that occurred over a period of time. OWCP accepted the factual portion of the claim, i.e., 

“that sitting in an uncomfortable chair ... caused back pain” and that he had requested an 

ergonomic chair to assist him with his back problems. However, it found that the claim 

remained denied because the medical evidence of record was insufficient to differentiate between 

the effects of the claimed injury and appellant’s preexisting condition. 

Appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration on October 13, 2015. Counsel 

provided a September 21, 2015 report from Dr. John W. Ellis, Board-certified in family 

medicine, and asserted that his opinion was sufficient to perfect appellant’s claim. 

In the September 21, 2015 report, Dr. Ellis noted conducting a telephone interview with 

appellant. Appellant reported radicular symptoms down both legs, which became numb if he 

drove more than 25 miles, and that he would then develop a panic attack. Dr. Ellis related that 

appellant injured his back in the army in 1996. After discharge, the VA treated him with back 

injections that did not relieve the pain, and he had continued leg numbness. Appellant began 

work with the employing establishment in 2006 in a job where he moved around, but continued 

to have back pain and numbness which stayed about the same. In 2013 he began working a job 

sitting at a standard desk with a standard chair on rollers. Appellant’s back pain increased and he 

requested a chair with lumbar support. He related that on April 18, 2014 his supervisor twirled 

his chair. This caused severe radiating pain that kept appellant from working the next day. He 

also reported service-connected injuries to the knees, left ankle, and left hand, as well as sleep 

apnea. Dr. Ellis reviewed records provided, beginning with Dr. Sanders’ June 25, 2015 report. 

He noted that, although appellant was concerned that sitting in a nonergonomic chair caused 

back pain, a lumbar support may not have helped because sitting caused greater pressure on 
6

lumbar discs. Dr. Ellis advised that appellant’s sudden onset of low back pain with increased 

radiation into his lower legs on April 18, 2014 was consistent with an acute herniation and disc 

bulging with pinching of the spinal nerves. He opined that it was medically reasonable that 

sitting in a chair, whether ergonomic or not, put greater pressure on lumbar discs, and this caused 

the discs to protrude backwards, causing the acute worsening of his symptoms consistent with an 

acute new change and new anatomical changes of the discs in his lower back. Dr. Ellis 

concluded that appellant’s preexisting condition was exacerbated and aggravated by sitting at 

work which caused increased pressure on his lumbar discs, leading to disc derangement and 

impingement on the spinal nerves into his legs. 

In a merit decision dated January 11, 2016, OWCP modified its March 5, 2015 decision, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish the factors as described. It found 

that neither appellant’s, nor counsel’s statement “describes an injury, event, incident or accident 

over one day or one shift or over a period of time as the result of employment. OWCP noted that 

appellant, through counsel, contended that his preexisting back conditions were aggravated 

because he was using a regular chair and did not receive an ergonomic chair and/or ergonomic 

workplace study performed, and was not provided reasonable accommodations within a 

reasonable time. Further, it denied the claim because the record contained insufficient medical 

evidence in which a physician provided a rationalized opinion between the work factor and a 

diagnosed medical condition. It noted that clarification was also needed from a physician 

regarding the specifics of appellant’s preexisting condition. 

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, and that the claim was timely filed within the 

applicable time limitation period of FECA.4

 When an employee claims that he or she sustained 

an injury in the performance of duty,5 he or she must submit sufficient evidence to establish that 

he or she experienced a specific event, incident, or exposure occurring at the time, place, and in 

the manner alleged.6

 The employee must also establish that such event, incident, or exposure 

caused an injury.7 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.8 

An employee’s statement that an injury occurred at a given time and in a given manner is of 

great probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong or persuasive evidence.9 Moreover, 

an injury does not have to be confirmed by eyewitnesses. The employee’s statement, however, 

 4

 5 U.S.C. § 8101(1); L.M., Docket No. 16-0143 (issued February 19, 2016); B.B., 59 ECAB 234 (2007). 

5

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

6 J.C., Docket No. 16-0057 (issued February 10, 2016); E.A., 58 ECAB 677 (2007). 

7 Id. 

8 R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008). 

9 R.T., Docket No. 08-408 (issued December 16, 2008); Gregory J. Reser, 57 ECAB 277 (2005). 
7

must be consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances and his subsequent course of 

action. An employee has not met his or her burden in establishing the occurrence of an injury 

when there are such inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt upon the validity of 

the claim. Circumstances such as late notification of injury, lack of confirmation of injury, 

continuing to work without apparent difficulty following the alleged injury, and failure to obtain 

medical treatment may, if otherwise unexplained, cast doubt on an employee’s statement in 

determining whether a prima facie case has been established.10

OWCP regulations define the term “occupational disease or illness” as a condition 

produced by the work environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.”11 To 

establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational disease 

claim, a claimant must submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing the presence or 

existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) a factual statement 

identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or 

occurrence of the disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed 

condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant. The medical 

opinion 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 claimant.12 

 Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish a 

causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.13 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.14 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 causal relationship.15

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has established an employment factor. Appellant has 

consistently maintained that sitting in a regular or nonergonomic chair at work caused him back 

pain as it was uncomfortable. He and his physicians have explained that as a consequence of 

sitting in the uncomfortable chair, appellant requested reasonable accommodations in the form of 

an ergonomic chair and an ergonomic workspace to ameliorate his pain and discomfort. 

Additionally, appellant sought medical care for his back problems. There is no strong or 

 10 Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002). 

11 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 

12 Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238 (2005). 

13 Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000). 

14 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994). 

15 Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997). 
8

persuasive evidence to the contrary. There are no inconsistencies to cast doubt on the validity of 

appellant’s claim. As such, the Board will modify the finding in OWCP’s January 11, 2016 

decision to find that appellant has established that sitting in an uncomfortable chair at work has 

caused him back pain. 

The Board further finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish that his 

current low back condition was caused by the accepted employment factor that sitting in the 

chair provided by the employing establishment caused back pain.16 In several merit decisions 

OWCP denied appellant’s claim. 

Based on appellant’s testimony, he has a service-related lumbar spine condition. The 

case record before the Board, however, contains no information regarding this injury such as a 

discharge or VA rating decision, or any medical evidence regarding this injury or his subsequent 

back condition between 1996 when he was discharged from the army and the present claimed 

injury in April 2014. Appellant asserted that his uncomfortable chair aggravated and/or 

exacerbated the preexisting condition and concomitant pain. The record contains no objective 

medical information regarding appellant’s low back condition, either past or present, such as 

MRI scan reports from 1996 to 2014 or other studies regarding his lumbar condition. There is no 

medical evidence to establish a baseline of appellant’s lumbar spine condition after his army 

discharge prior to the claimed work-related condition in 2014. Without documentation bridging 

appellant’s medical condition after his 1996 army discharge up to April 2014, it is difficult to 

assess his baseline condition prior to that time.17

Dr. Kawasaki’s April 24, 2014 report is the earliest report of record. There are no reports 

that precede it. In the April 24, 2014 report, Dr. Kawasaki merely noted that appellant had longstanding lower back pain, prone to episodic flares, and that he could return to work on Monday, 

April 28, 2014. Moreover, Dr. Kawasaki did not discuss a cause of appellant’s back pain. 

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.18 Appellant did not return to 

work on April 28, 2014 and has not worked since. 

Dr. Sanders’ reports dated April 29 to November 4, 2014 are also insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden. He initially simply advised that appellant was undergoing medical treatment 

and could not work. Although Dr. Sanders later diagnosed lumbar spondylosis, foraminal 

stenosis, and failed back syndrome, in the few treatment notes contained in the record dated 

July 18 and October 2, 2014, he did not indicate that he examined appellant’s back. Dr. Sanders 

also referenced an unknown MRI scan, which is not in the record. Dr. Sanders also advised that 

appellant was under the care of Dr. Butler, an orthopedist, Dr. Houser, a neurologist, and 

 16 The Board notes that although the claim was initially adjudicated by OWCP as a traumatic injury, as noted in 

the March 5, 2015 decision, the claim was found to be occupational because appellant described employment factors 

that occurred over a period of time. 

17 See C.W., Docket No. 14-0730 (issued January 8, 2015). 

18 Willie M. Miller, 53 ECAB 697 (2002). 
9

Dr. Braxton, a physiatrist, and was under management by a psychiatrist for an anxiety disorder 

related to back pain, but there are no reports in the record from these physicians.19

In his November 4, 2014 report, Dr. Sanders advised that appellant showed no 

improvement, and had severe sciatica, paresthesias, and musculoskeletal pain in his back and 

both lower extremities. He opined that appellant’s working conditions directly impacted and 

exacerbated his underlying spinal condition causing great pain and suffering. The opinion of a 

physician supporting causal relationship must be one of reasonable medical certainty that the 

condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to federal employment and such 

relationship must be supported with affirmative evidence, explained by medical rationale and be 

based upon a complete and accurate medical and factual background of the claimant.20 

Furthermore, a mere conclusion without the necessary rationale explaining how and why the 

physician believes that a claimant’s accepted exposure could result in a diagnosed condition is 

not sufficient to meet a claimant’s burden of proof.21 Dr. Sanders did not provide examination 

findings regarding appellant’s back condition. He did not demonstrate specific knowledge of 

appellant’s service-related injury, or his lumbar condition between 1996 and April 2014, and he 

did not submit objective testing to demonstrate that appellant had the conditions he diagnosed. 

Thus, Dr. Sanders’ opinion on causal relationship is of insufficient probative value to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof. 

In his September 21, 2015 report, Dr. Ellis acknowledged that he did not examine 

appellant, rather only interviewed him by telephone. He noted appellant’s service-related back 

injury. Dr. Ellis advised that appellant had an additional severe back injury that occurred on 

April 18, 2014 when his supervisor twirled his chair and this caused radiating pain so severe that 

he could not go to work the next day. He opined that it was medically reasonable that just sitting 

in a chair, whether ergonomic or not, put greater pressure on the lumbar discs, and appellant’s 

acute onset of worsening symptoms was consistent with a new acute change and new anatomical 

changes in his lower back. Dr. Ellis concluded that sitting at work exacerbated and aggravated 

appellant’s preexisting back condition, causing further spinal derangement. 

To establish causal relationship, a claimant must submit a physician’s report in which the 

physician reviews the employment factors identified as causing the claimed condition and, taking 

these factors into consideration as well as findings upon examination, states whether the 

employment injury caused or aggravated the diagnosed conditions and presents medical rationale 

in support of his or her opinion.22 Dr. Ellis did not examine appellant. He also demonstrated no 

 19 The Board notes that the record contains a report from Ilsa Araki, M.A., a mental health counselor. Section 

8101(2) defines the term “physician” to include 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). As causal relationship is a medical question that can only be resolved by medical opinion evidence, the 

reports of a nonphysician such as Ms. Araki cannot be considered by the Board in adjudicating that issue. See L.C., 

Docket No. 08-2271 (issued August 6, 2009). 

20 Patricia J. Glenn, 53 ECAB 159 (2001). 

21 J.D., Docket No. 14-2061 (issued February 27, 2015). 

22 J.M., 58 ECAB 303 (2007). 
10

specific objective knowledge of appellant’s service-related injury or his back condition either in 

the interim from 1996 to April 2014 or since. Dr. Ellis’ report is conclusory and insufficient to 

meet appellant’s burden of proof.23

Although appellant indicated that E.W. bumped and/or twirled his chair on April 18, 

2014 and that he reported the incident to employing establishment security, there is no evidence 

of record to support this allegation. Furthermore, he did not mention this assertion until 

October 2014, six months after he stopped work. 

Finally, although appellant alleged managerial harassment, this claim is for a back 

condition only. He has not filed a claim for an emotional condition. 

As none of the physicians of record provided a sufficient explanation regarding whether 

appellant’s current back condition was a progression of his preexisting service-related lumbar 

injury or was caused by sitting at work, he did not meet his burden of proof. 

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 did not meet his burden of proof to establish a back 

condition causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

 23 Id. 
11

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 11, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed, as modified. 

Issued: October 3, 2016 

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