United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.G., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU 

OF RECLAMATION, Billings, MT, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0632 

Issued: July 26, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 27, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 9, 2016 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 this case. 

ISSUE 

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

August 11, 2016 causally related to the accepted employment incident. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 19, 2016 appellant, then a 50-year-old engineering equipment operator, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on August 11, 2016, he injured his back when 

he bent down to place packing paper into a trash can. He did not stop work. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

In a report dated September 14, 2016, Dr. Paul J. Miller, a Board-certified osteopath, 

related appellant’s date of injury as August 11, 2016. He examined appellant, noted back pain, 

and diagnosed foraminal stenosis of the lumbosacral region, and L5-S1 degenerative disc disease 

with neural foraminal stenosis and L5 radiculopathy bilaterally, greater on the right. Dr. Miller 

related that appellant reported his condition had been present for a number of years, dating back 

to approximately three years earlier when he fell at work. He further noted that in July 2016 

appellant bent over to throw something into the trash, which aggravated his existing condition. 

On September 14, 2016 Dr. Miller interpreted the results of an x-ray of appellant’s 

lumbar spine. He noted no abnormalities except a slight listhesis at L5-S1 with disc collapse. 

By letter dated October 27, 2016, OWCP informed appellant of the evidence needed to 

establish his claim. It noted that he had not submitted sufficient factual and medical evidence to 

establish his claim, and afforded him 30 days to submit additional evidence. 

OWCP thereafter received additional medical evidence. In a diagnostic report dated 

July 7, 2016, Dr. James T. Harris, Board-certified in occupational medicine, examined the results 

of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of appellant’s lumbar spine. He stated impressions 

of mild, worsening degenerative disease with new and increasing disc bulges. Dr. Harris noted 

evidence of an annular tear or fissure in the posterior margin of the L5-S1 disc, along with mild 

narrowing of the spinal canal at L3-4 and multilevel foraminal narrowing with mild left and 

moderate right neural foraminal narrowing at L5-S1. 

In a report dated November 4, 2016, Dr. Miller followed up with appellant after an 

epidural steroid. He noted that after the injection on October 14, 2016 appellant’s pain did not 

resolve, but changed with constant but intermittent levels of intensity. Dr. Miller assessed 

appellant with lumbar spinal stenosis. 

By decision dated December 9, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation. 

It accepted that appellant had established that the incident occurred as alleged, but found that he 

had not submitted any rationalized medical evidence to establish causal relationship between the 

incident of August 11, 2016 and his diagnosed conditions. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2

 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 injury3

 was sustained in the performance of 

 2 Id. 

3

 OWCP’s regulations define a traumatic injury as a condition of the body caused by a specific event or incident, 

or series of events of 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). 
3

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

is causally related to the employment injury.4

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 or she 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.5

The claimant has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of reliable, probative and 

substantial evidence that the condition for which compensation is sought is causally related to a 

specific employment incident or to specific conditions of employment.6 An award of 

compensation may not be based on appellant’s belief of causal relationship. 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.7

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.8 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 

compensable employment factors.9 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.10

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that on August 11, 2016 appellant sustained a back injury as a result of 

putting packing paper into a trash can. The Board finds that appellant has not submitted medical 

 4 T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393 (2008); see Steven S. Saleh, 55 ECAB 169, 171-72 (2003); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

5 See Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997); John J. Carlone 41 ECAB 354, 356-57 (1989). 

6 Roma A. Mortenson-Kindschi, 57 ECAB 418, 428 n.37 (2006); Katherine J. Friday, 47 ECAB 591, 594 (1996). 

7 P.K., Docket No. 08-2551 (issued June 2, 2009); Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215, 218 (1997). 

8 Y.J., Docket No. 08-1167 (issued October 7, 2008); A.D., 58 ECAB 149, 155-56 (2006); DʹWayne Avila, 57 

ECAB 642, 649 (2006). 

9 J.J., Docket No. 09-27 (issued February 10, 2009); Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379, 384 (2006). 

10 I.J., 59 ECAB 408, 415 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989). 
4

evidence sufficient to establish that the August 11, 2016 incident caused or aggravated his 

diagnosed foraminal stenosis of the lumbosacral region, and L5-S1 degenerative disc disease 

with neural foraminal stenosis and L5 radiculopathy bilaterally. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted several reports from Dr. Miller. In a report 

dated September 14, 2016, Dr. Miller diagnosed foraminal stenosis of the lumbosacral region, 

L5-S1 degenerative disc disease with neural foraminal stenosis and L5 radiculopathy. He noted 

that appellant reported that his condition had been present for a number of years, dating back to 

approximately three years earlier when he fell at work. While Dr. Miller related appellant’s date 

of injury as August 11, 2016, he further noted that in July 2016 appellant bent over to throw 

something into the trash, which aggravated his existing condition. In his November 4, 2016 

report, Dr. Miller diagnosed lumbar spinal stenosis. These reports, while probative on the issue 

of appellant’s diagnosis, do not contain a sufficient biomechanical explanation of how the event 

of August 11, 2016 caused or aggravated these conditions. This is especially important given 

appellant’s history of preexisting degenerative lumbar disease.11

The record is devoid of a rationalized opinion from a qualified physician on the issue of 

the causal relationship between appellant’s lower back conditions and the incident of 

August 11, 2016. While Dr. Miller recounted appellant’s recollection of a past history of back 

conditions, along with an incident in July 2016 similar to the incident of August 11, 2016, he did 

not offer a rationalized medical opinion, as to the cause of appellant’s conditions.12 

OWCP also received several diagnostic reports. In a July 7, 2016 report, Dr. Harris 

reviewed appellant’s MRI scan and related impressions of mild, worsening degenerative disease 

with new and increasing disc bulges, annual tear or fissure in the posterior margin of the L5-S1 

disc, along with mild narrowing of the spinal canal at L3-4 and multilevel foraminal narrowing 

with mild left and moderate right neural forminal narrowing at L5-S1. The Board notes that this 

report predates the August 11, 2016 employment incident. In a September 14, 2016 report, 

Dr. Miller interpreted an x-ray of appellant’s lumbar spine and noted a slight listhesis at L5-S1 

with disc collapse. The Board has held that diagnostic reports are of limited probative value 

regarding the issue of causal relationship as they provide no opinion on the cause of the 

diagnosed conditions.13 

Medical evidence submitted to support a claim for compensation should reflect a correct 

history, and the physician should offer a medically-sound explanation of how the claimed work 

event caused or aggravated the claimed condition.14

An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture, or speculation. 

Neither the fact that appellant’s condition became apparent during a period of employment nor 

the belief that his condition was caused, precipitated, or aggravated by his employment is 

 11 W.N., Docket No. 16-1722 (issued March 22, 2017). 

12 Supra note 10. 

13 M.S., Docket No. 16-1362 (issued December 7, 2016). 

14 Supra note 11. 
5

sufficient to establish causal relationship.15 As such, the Board finds that appellant did not 

submit sufficient evidence to establish his claim for a work-related traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty on August 11, 2016. He did not submit a clear and rationalized opinion 

from a qualified physician relating his diagnosed lower back conditions to the incident of 

August 11, 2016. 

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 an injury on 

August 11, 2016 causally related to the accepted employment incident. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated December 9, 2016 is affirmed. 

Issued: July 26, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 15 J.S., Docket No. 16-1769 (issued May 24, 2017).