United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.H., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bellmawr, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1227 

Issued: February 9, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, 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 23, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a February 17, 

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 her burden of proof to establish a cervical condition 

causally related to factors of her 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 October 8, 2014 appellant, a 51-year-old mail carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained a cervical condition causally related to factors of 

her federal employment. 

In a January 9, 2015 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim that she sustained a 

cervical condition in the performance of duty. 

In a report dated October 6, 2013, Dr. Bruce Rosenbaum, Board-certified in 

neurosurgery, advised that he was providing an opinion in support of a traumatic injury claim. 

He advised that appellant was sorting mail on December 13, 2012 when she began to experience 

neck pain into the head and pain down the left upper extremity to the second and third digits of 

the left hand. Dr. Rosenbaum reported that she subsequently went to her supervisor’s office, 

where she had a syncopal episode. Appellant underwent an electroencephalogram which 

Dr. Rosenbaum advised was consistent with occasional right temporal sharp waves. He noted 

that a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the cervical spine showed predominant C3-4 

and C4-5 disc osteophyte complex of the brain. Dr. Rosenbaum diagnosed syncope and cervical 

radiculopathy caused by the nature of her work. He noted that she performed repetitive 

movements with the upper extremities. Dr. Rosenbaum advised that the syncopal event was not 

related to the work injury. He opined that the period of disability pertaining to the work-related 

cervical radiculopathy was from December 13, 2012 through April 18, 2013. 

By decision dated January 9, 2015, OWCP denied the claim, finding that appellant failed 

to meet her burden of proof to establish that she sustained a cervical condition causally related to 

the accepted employment factors. 

By letter dated January 19, 2015, counsel requested an oral hearing before a 

representative of the Branch of Hearings and Review, which was held on June 24, 2015. 

In a decision dated September 10, 2015, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

January 9, 2015 decision. 

In a report dated September 13, 2015, received by OWCP on December 18, 2015, 

Dr. Rosenbaum noted appellant’s duties of twisting, bending, reaching and lifting up to 70 

pounds, as well as pushing with reference to the sorting, carrying, and transporting of mail and 

parcels. He advised that the definitive diagnosis was cervical radiculopathy causally related to 

her repetitive work injuries of an occupational nature, caused by the repetitive trauma of her 

occupational injury. Dr. Rosenbaum opined, based on his experience as a Board-certified 

neurosurgeon, that the repetitive nature of the work she described including bending, twisting, 

lifting, and reaching on an ongoing continuous, repetitive basis, was exactly the etiology of such 

injuries she had with reference to her cervical discogenic disease and associated, occupationally 

caused cervical radiculopathy. 

On November 20, 2015 counsel filed a request for reconsideration of the September 10, 

2015 decision. 
3

By decision dated February 17, 2016, OWCP denied modification of the September 10, 

2015 decision. It found that appellant failed to present medical evidence sufficient to establish a 

cervical condition causally related to employment factors. 

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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period of FECA, that an injury was sustained 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 upon a traumatic injury or an 

occupational disease.5

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 

employment factors identified by the claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for 

which compensation is claimed, or, stated differently, medical evidence establishing that the 

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

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is usually rationalized medical 

evidence. Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a 

physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship between the 

claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors. 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 claimant.6

Appellant has the burden of establishing by the weight of the substantial, reliable, and 

probative evidence, a causal relationship between her claimed lower back and neck conditions 

and her federal employment. This burden includes providing medical evidence from a physician 

who concludes that the disabling condition is causally related to employment factors and 

supports that conclusion with sound medical reasoning.7

 3 Id. 

4 Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

5

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

6 Id.

7 See Nicolea Bruso, 33 ECAB 1138, 1140 (1982). 
4

ANALYSIS 

Appellant has failed to submit medical opinion containing a rationalized, probative report 

which relates her claimed cervical condition to factors of her employment. 

Dr. Rosenbaum’s October 6, 2013 and September 13, 2015 reports noted appellant’s 

complaints of neck pain and presented a diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy, which he generally 

attributed to employment factors. In his October 6, 2013 report, he advised that she was sorting 

mail on December 13, 2012 when she began to experience neck pain into the head and pain 

down the left upper extremity to the second and third digits of the left hand. Dr. Rosenbaum 

reported that appellant subsequently went to her supervisor’s office, where she had a syncopal 

episode. He noted that a cervical MRI scan showed predominant C3-4 and C4-5 disc osteophyte 

complex of the brain. Dr. Rosenbaum diagnosed syncope and cervical radiculopathy caused by 

the nature of appellant’s work. He noted that she performed repetitive movements with the 

upper extremities. Dr. Rosenbaum opined, however, that the syncopal event was not related to 

the work injury. He noted that appellant was disabled due to work-related cervical radiculopathy 

from December 13, 2012 through April 18, 2013. In his September 13, 2015 report, 

Dr. Rosenbaum noted her duties of twisting, bending, reaching and lifting up to 70 pounds, as 

well as pushing with reference to the sorting, carrying and transporting of mail and parcels. He 

reiterated his diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy, which, he advised, was causally related to 

appellant’s repetitive work injuries of an occupational nature, caused by the repetitive trauma of 

her occupational injury. Dr. Rosenbaum noted that her work was of a repetitive nature, including 

bending, twisting, lifting, and reaching on an ongoing, continuous, and repetitive basis. 

Dr. Rosenbaum’s reports did not provide a probative, rationalized medical opinion that 

the claimed conditions or disability were causally related to employment factors.8

 He did not 

sufficiently describe appellant’s job duties or explain the medical process through which such 

duties would have been competent to cause the claimed condition. Dr. Rosenbaum’s opinion is 

of limited probative value as it does not contain any medical rationale explaining how appellant’s 

job duties physiologically caused the diagnosed cervical radiculopathy condition. His reports 

thus did not constitute adequate medical evidence to establish that appellant’s claimed cervical 

condition was causally related to her employment. 

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 

sufficient to establish causal relationship.9

 Causal relationship must be established by 

rationalized medical opinion evidence and appellant failed to submit such evidence. 

OWCP advised appellant of the evidence required to establish her claim; however, 

appellant failed to submit such evidence. Consequently, appellant has not met her burden of 

proof in establishing that her claimed cervical condition was causally related to her employment. 

 8 William C. Thomas, 45 ECAB 591 (1994). 

9 Id.
5

On appeal counsel contends that Dr. Rosenbaum’s reports are uncontroverted and contain 

medical evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case that she sustained a cervical condition 

causally related to employment factors. For the reasons set forth above, appellant failed to meet 

her 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 failed to meet her burden of proof to establish a 

claimed cervical condition causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 17, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs be affirmed. 

Issued: February 9, 2017 

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