United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

V.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Princeton, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1925

Issued: March 1, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Russell T. Uliase, 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 September 12, 2017 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a May 30, 

2017 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 to consider the merits of this case.

ISSUE

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

lumbar conditions 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 3, 2015 appellant, then a 50-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that his cervical and lumbar radiculopathies were caused by 

repetitive work movements during his federal employment. He did not stop work.

On November 30, 2015 OWCP received appellant’s statement dated September 15, 2015 

detailing his employment history with the employing establishment. Appellant described in 

detail the employment factors he believed caused his conditions which included constant 

repetitive bending, twisting, and reaching.

By development letter dated January 15, 2016, OWCP informed appellant that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish his claim. It advised appellant regarding the type 

of medical and factual evidence needed and afforded him 30 days to provide the requested 

information.

In response to OWCP’s request, appellant’s counsel submitted electromyography (EMG) 

studies dated June 4 and 15, 2015. Dr. Nidhi Modi, a Board-certified neurologist, reviewed both 

the June 4 and 15, 2015 EMG studies, which he related revealed abnormal findings. With 

respect to the June 4, 2015 study, he diagnosed acute bilateral C7-T1 cervical radiculopathies. In 

support of this conclusion, Dr. Modi noted active right C7 paraspinal muscle active denervation, 

unremarkable upper extremity motor and sensory nerve conduction studies, and bilateral upper 

extremity giant motor units recruitment of the opponens pollicis and FCI muscles. He explained 

that the June 15, 2015 test was remarkable for the absent bilateral H-waves in the lower 

extremity motor and sensory nerve conduction. Based on the findings from the studies, Dr. Modi

diagnosed chronic L2-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 and chronic right L5-S1 lumbosacral radiculopathies. 

He recommended that clinical correlation be conducted.

By decision dated February 18, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim. It explained that appellant failed to submit medical evidence sufficient to establish a

medical diagnosis causally related to the accepted employment factors.

In a letter dated February 29, 2016, counsel requested an oral hearing before an OWCP 

hearing representative, which was held on May 26, 2016.

Counsel subsequently submitted an October 20, 2015 report from Dr. Nicholas P. 

Diamond, an osteopathic physician Board-certified in pain management. Dr. Diamond detailed 

appellant’s employment history and employment factors. He provided results of diagnostic tests, 

as well as findings from appellant’s physical examination. Appellant’s diagnoses were related as 

repetitive and cumulative trauma disorder, chronic cervical and lumbar sprain/strain, 

occupational cervical spine syndrome, bilateral chronic C7-T1 active denervation, bilateral flexor 

digitorum indicis and opens pollicis giant motor recruitment, occupational low back syndrome, 

left L2-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 and bilateral L5-S1 radiculopathies. Dr. Diamond opined that 

appellant’s employment caused his cervical and lumbar spine cumulative and repetitive trauma 

disorder.
3

Dr. Diamond, in a May 4, 2016 update of his October 20, 2015 report, reiterated prior 

findings and diagnoses.

In a May 17, 2016 report, Dr. Diamond referenced medical literature regarding the causes 

of repetitive strain injuries and back disorders and injuries noted in the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA) technical manual. He explained that the literature and OSHA 

manual referenced in his report establish that appellant’s work duties directly caused appellant’s 

diagnosed conditions. 

In a May 31, 2016 report, Dr. Steven J. Valentino, an examining Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, detailed appellant’s employment factors and listed examination findings. 

Diagnoses included low back pain, facet syndrome, and lumbar and cervical radiculopathies due 

to spinal degenerative joint disease. Dr. Valentino observed that appellant’s letter carrier 

position required repetitive activities, which he concluded were the cause of appellant’s 

diagnosed conditions.

By decision dated August 4, 2016, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s

February 18, 2016 decision. He found the record was devoid of any rationalized medical 

evidence explaining how the diagnosed conditions were caused or aggravated by the accepted 

factors of appellant’s federal employment.

On October 21, 2016 counsel requested reconsideration and submitted a July 21, 2016 

report from Dr. Valentino in support of his request. Dr. Valentino detailed the duties performed 

by appellant since being hired by the employing establishment on May 1, 2001. Findings from 

diagnostic tests and appellant’s physical examination were noted. Based on physical 

examination findings and review of diagnostic tests, Dr. Valentino diagnosed cervical and 

lumbar degenerative disc disease aggravation with facet syndrome and cervical and lumbar 

radiculopathies. He attributed the diagnosed conditions to the accepted factors of his federal 

employment. Dr. Valentino explained that appellant’s work activities created progressive and 

significant cervical and lumbar stress resulting in symptomatic lumbar and cervical degenerative 

disc disease with facet syndrome and lumbar and cervical radiculopathies.

By decision dated January 6, 2017, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision as it 

found that the report from Dr. Valentino was insufficiently rationalized.

In a letter received on March 15, 2017, counsel requested reconsideration and submitted a 

March 15, 2017 report by Dr. Valentino in support of his request. Dr.Valentino noted that 

appellant attributed his condition to repetitive bending and twisting, walking, and other mailrelated duties. He reiterated his physical examination findings and findings from diagnostic 

tests, and explained that appellant experienced repetitive trauma from his work. Moreover, Dr. 

Valentino observed appellant had no symptoms prior to his claimed work injury. He concluded 

that, based on the comparison of appellant’s condition prior to the claimed work injury and 

subsequent thereto, aggravation was established. 

By decision dated May 30, 2016, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision as it 

found that Dr. Valentino failed to provide a sufficiently rationalized opinion explaining how the 

diagnosed conditions were caused or aggravated by appellant’s federal employment factors.
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation, that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty, as alleged, and that any 

disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the 

employment injury.4 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.5

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.6 

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.7 Rationalized medical 

opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on 

whether there is causal relationship between the employee’s diagnosed condition and the 

compensable employment factors.8 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.9 

ANALYSIS

Appellant attributed his cervical and lumbar radiculopathies to repetitive movements

required by the accepted factors of his federal employment. 

 

3

Id. 

4 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006).

5 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

6 D.U., Docket No. 10-0144 (issued July 27, 2010); R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008); Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238 

(2005); Donald W. Wenzel, 56 ECAB 390 (2005).

7 Y.J., Docket No. 08-1167 (issued October 7, 2008); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); D’Wayne Avila, 57 ECAB 

642 (2006).

8

J.J., Docket No. 09-0027 (issued February 10, 2009); Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379 (2006).

9

I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
5

The Board finds that appellant failed to submit sufficient medical evidence to establish 

that his diagnosed conditions were causally related to accepted factors of his federal 

employment. Appellant, therefore, failed to meet his burden of proof.

In reports dated October 20, 2015, May 4 and 17, 2016, Dr. Diamond noted appellant’s 

complaints of neck and back pain, which he attributed to appellant’s repetitive work duties. He 

diagnosed repetitive and cumulative trauma disorder, chronic cervical and lumbar sprain/strain, 

occupational cervical spine syndrome, bilateral chronic C7-T1 active denervation, bilateral flexor 

digitorum indicis and opens pollicis giant motor recruitment, occupational low back syndrome, 

left L2-4, L4-5, and L5-S1and bilateral L5-S1 radiculopathies. Dr. Diamond opined that the 

diagnosed conditions had been caused by appellant’s repetitive work duties. He referenced 

medical literature on the causes of repetitive strain and back injuries. The Board has held that 

medical texts and excerpts from publications have no evidentiary value in establishing causal 

relationship between a claimed condition and an employee’s federal employment as such 

materials are of general application and are not determinative of whether the specific condition 

claimed is related to the particular employment factors alleged by the employee.10

The Board notes that, while Dr. Diamond attributed the diagnosed conditions to 

appellant’s federal employment factors, he merely offered a conclusion. No supporting medical 

rationale was given explaining his conclusory opinion regarding the relationship between the 

diagnosed conditions and the accepted federal employment factors.

11

 Dr. Diamond did not 

explain how any specific employment factors physiologically caused any of the diagnosed 

conditions. Without explaining how physiologically the movements involved in appellant’s 

employment factors caused or contributed to his diagnosed condition, Dr. Diamond’s opinion on 

causal relationship is insufficiently rationalized and is of limited probative value.12 Therefore,

Dr. Diamond’s reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

Similarly, Dr. Valentino’s May 31 and July 21, 2016 and March 15, 2017 reports are also 

insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. He detailed appellant’s accepted federal employment 

factors and diagnosed cervical and lumbar degenerative disc disease, aggravation with facet 

syndrome, and cervical and lumbar radiculopathies. Dr. Valentino opined that these diagnoses 

were caused by appellant’s repetitive work duties. His opinion on causal relationship is vague

and generalized in nature. Dr. Valentino simply listed appellant’s employment factors and 

concluded that they caused the diagnosed conditions. He did not indicate how often appellant 

performed each factor, correlate the factors to specific objective findings on physical 

examination and diagnostic testing, or describe the medical processes through which any factor

could have been competent to cause or aggravate a specific diagnosed condition.13 The Board 

further notes that Dr. Valentino observed that since appellant had no symptoms previous to his 

 

10 J.F., Docket No. 17-0458 (issued October 21, 2017). 

11 See T.M., Docket No. 08-0975 (issued February 6, 2009); Beverly A. Spencer, 55 ECAB 501 (2004) (a medical 

report is of limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship if it contains a conclusion regarding causal 

relationship which is unsupported by medical rationale).

12 M.C., Docket No. 17-1579 (issued November 28, 2017). 

13 See R.G., Docket No. 17-1536 (issued December 5, 2017). 
6

employment, his condition subsequently must be causally related, but the Board has held that an 

opinion that a condition is causally related to employment because the employee was 

asymptomatic prior, but symptomatic after it, is insufficient, without supporting rationale, to 

establish causal relationship.14 As Dr. Valentino provided no supporting rationale or explanation 

for his conclusions, his reports were also insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

Appellant also submitted EMG tests dated June 4 and 15, 2015 from Dr. Modi diagnosing 

acute bilateral C7-T1 cervical radiculopathies. The Board has held that reports of diagnostic 

tests are of limited probative value as they fail to provide an opinion on the causal relationship 

between appellant’s accepted employment factors and the diagnosed condition. For this reason, 

this evidence is insufficient to meet his burden of proof.15

Consequently, the Board finds that appellant has not submitted sufficient medical 

evidence to establish that his accepted federal employment factors caused or aggravated a 

diagnosed medical condition. Thus, he has failed to 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 has not met his burden of proof to establish cervical and 

lumbar conditions causally related to factors of his federal employment.

 

14 See J.G., Docket No. 17-0709 (issued July 21, 2017). 

15 See D.S., Docket No. 17-1657 (issued January 4, 2018). 
7

ORDER

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

Compensation Programs dated May 30, 2017 is affirmed.

Issued: March 1, 2018

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