United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

P.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Los Angeles, CA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0590 

Issued: June 8, 2017 

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 January 23, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from September 9 and December 22, 

2016 merit decisions 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 has established a back injury causally related to factors of 

his federal employment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board.2 The facts of the case as presented in the 

Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as follows. 

On October 27, 2014 appellant, then a 42-year-old mail handler, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained a back condition from heavy lifting while 

loading and unloading trucks. He reported that he first became aware of the condition and its 

relationship to his federal employment on July 2, 2010.3

 The supervisor’s report on the reverse 

of the claim form contended asserted that the claim appeared to be untimely because appellant 

was no longer on the employment rolls as of July 13, 2013.4

 

With respect to medical evidence, the record contains “work status” reports from Kaiser 

Permanente physicians for intermittent dates in July 2010, and March through June 2012. In a 

report dated April 24, 2014, for example, Dr. Calvin Wood, Board-certified in emergency 

medicine, diagnosed chronic low back pain and indicated that appellant was placed off work 

April 24 and 25, 2012. 

By decision dated January 26, 2015, OWCP denied the claim for compensation. It found 

that the claim was timely filed. However, the medical evidence of record did not establish an 

injury causally related to the identified employment factors. 

On February 11, 2015 appellant requested a review of the written record by an OWCP 

hearing representative. He submitted medical evidence, which included treatment reports for the 

back from Kaiser Permanente from February 29, 2009 through April 11, 2013. With respect to 

reports from physicians, the evidence included a report dated November 11, 2010 from 

Dr. Bharti Nachnani, a Board-certified family practitioner, who provided a history that appellant 

had low back muscle spasms since February, “probably related to appellant’s work as a mail 

handler.” He provided results on examination and diagnosed low back pain. In a report dated 

July 20, 2011, Dr. Darren Shimabukuro, a Board-certified internist, who reported appellant had 

chronic back pain “due to occupation, lifts heavy loads” more often since a cut back in staff. In a 

report dated March 25, 2012, Dr. Anjum Sameena, a Board-certified family practitioner, reported 

that appellant had complained of low back pain for two days. He noted that appellant did heavy 

lifting at work and had a history of back problems. Dr. Sameena provided results on 

examination and diagnosed low back pain. By report dated April 15, 2012, Dr. Wendell 

Osborne, a Board-certified family practitioner, noted that lumbar x-rays dated August 4, 2010 

showed moderate narrowing of the L3-4 disc space with spurring representing degenerative disc 

disease. 

 2

 Docket No. 16-0683 (issued June 3, 2016); Order Dismissing Appeal, Docket No. 16-0825 (issued 

July 22, 2016). 

3

 The record contains a second CA-2 form, received by OWCP on October 27, 2014, also claiming a back injury 

due to loading and unloading trucks. The date appellant was aware of the condition and its relationship to 

employment was reported as May 24, 2010. 

4

 The actual date of last employment was July 13, 2012. 
3

By decision dated July 28, 2015, the hearing representative affirmed the January 26, 2015 

OWCP decision. The hearing representative found that the medical evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish the claim. 

Appellant requested reconsideration on August 24, 2015. He argued that based on Board 

case law, the medical evidence submitted was sufficient to establish the claim. 

In a decision dated November 2, 2015, OWCP reviewed the merits of the claim and 

denied modification. It found that the evidence submitted was not of sufficient probative value 

to warrant modification of the July 28, 2015 decision. 

On February 17, 2016 appellant appealed to the Board. By decision dated June 3, 2016, 

the Board affirmed the November 2, 2015 OWCP decision.5

 The Board found that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish the claim for compensation. 

Appellant requested reconsideration on June 17, 2016, expressing his disagreement with 

OWCP’s denial of his claim. As to medical evidence, appellant submitted a treatment note dated 

April 30, 2016 from Dr. Nareshkumar Arulampalam, a Board-certified psychiatrist. 

Dr. Arulampalam indicated that appellant was seen for anxiety and sleep problems. He 

diagnosed anxiety disorder, depression, chronic low back pain, and lumbar spondylosis. As to 

chronic low back pain, Dr. Arulampalam indicated that the condition had continued from 

August 3, 2010 to the present. He wrote that appellant had a recurrent muscle injury due to 

lifting at work while loading and unloading trucks. Appellant also submitted a treatment note 

dated November 23, 2015 from Dr. Patrick Casey, a Board-certified psychiatrist. Dr. Casey 

wrote that appellant had been fired from his job four years earlier, that he felt this was unfair, and 

he had intermittent depression and anxiety since that time. 

By decision dated September 9, 2016, OWCP reviewed the merits of the claim and 

denied modification. It found that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish 

the claim for compensation. 

On November 1, 2016 appellant again requested reconsideration. He argued that he felt 

the medical evidence was sufficient to establish his claim. Additional medical evidence was 

submitted including a May 5, 2016 report from Dr. Marc Montecillo, a Board-certified internist, 

indicating that appellant was seen for low back pain. He reported that appellant had lumbar 

degenerative disc disease, with an initial onset of back pain in 2009. 

Appellant also submitted an August 3, 2010 report from Dr. Shimabukuro, reporting that 

appellant had early lumbar degenerative disc disease with recurrent muscular back injury from 

work. In an October 17, 2016 note, Dr. Val Valco, a Board-certified internist, wrote that 

appellant had a history of chronic back pain which was now controlled. He reported that 

appellant indicated that he was able to perform his job duties. Appellant also submitted a 

July 24, 2011 note from a physician assistant. 

 5

 Docket No. 16-0683, supra note 2. While the Board had jurisdiction over the case, OWCP issued a 

February 24, 2016 decision denying reconsideration. Appellant appealed to the Board. By order dated July 22, 

2016, the Board dismissed his appeal, finding that the February 24, 2016 nonmerit decision was null and void. 

Order Dismissing Appeal, Docket No. 16-0825, supra note 2. 
4

By decision dated December 22, 2016, OWCP reviewed the merits of the claim, but 

denied modification. It again found that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to 

establish the claim for compensation. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

A claimant seeking benefits under FECA6

 has the burden of proof to establish the 

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

evidence, including that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that 

any specific condition or disability claimed is causally related to the employment injury.7

 

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

disease claim, a claimant must submit: (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.8

 

Causal relationship is a medical question that can generally be resolved only by 

rationalized medical opinion evidence.9 A physician’s opinion on the issue of whether there is 

causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment 

factors must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant.10 

Additionally, in order to be considered rationalized, the opinion must be expressed in terms of a 

reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by sound medical rationale 

explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s 

specific employment factors.11 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant has alleged a back injury casually related to lifting in his federal employment 

as a mail handler. The Board has reviewed the medical evidence submitted after November 2, 

201512 and finds that the evidence is insufficient to establish the claim. 

 6 Supra note 1. 

7

 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f) (2005); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996). 

8 Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994). 

9 See Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996). 

10 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989). 

11 Id. 

12 In the prior appeal, the Board reviewed the evidence of record as of November 2, 2015 and affirmed OWCP’s 

decision. The Board finds that, with respect to the findings made in its prior decision dated June 9, 2015, those 

matters are res judicata absent any further review by OWCP under section 8128 of FECA. See D.V., Docket No. 

16-1168 (issued September 13, 2016). 
5

The August 3, 2010 report from Dr. Shimabukuro, briefly notes a recurrent muscular 

back injury at work. This report provides an incomplete history and no medical rationale as to 

causal relationship between a diagnosed condition and federal employment.13 Thus, it is of 

limited probative value and thus, insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

Dr. Arulampalam and Dr. Casey are psychiatrists and did not treat appellant for a back 

condition. The April 30, 2016 report from Dr. Arulampalam provides only a brief reference to a 

history of chronic back pain due to lifting at work, but without providing additional detail or 

explanation. Dr. Casey did not discuss an employment-related back condition. The Board has 

held that 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.14 Thus, the reports of 

Drs. Arulampalam and Dr. Casey are of limited probative value and insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof. 

Dr. Montecillo reported on May 5, 2016 that appellant had lumbar degenerative disc 

disease since 2009. He did not provide a complete history or a rationalized medical opinion 

establishing a diagnosed back condition causally related to federal employment.15 

Dr. Valco briefly indicated in his October 17, 2016 note that appellant had a history of 

chronic back pain, but he felt he could return to work. He did not discuss the relevant issues 

presented regarding causal relationship between a back condition and federal employment. The 

Board has held that the mere fact that a condition manifests itself during a period of employment 

does not raise an inference of causal relation.16 An award of compensation may not be based on 

surmise, conjecture, speculation, or upon appellant’s own belief that there was a causal 

relationship between his condition and his employment.17 Causal relationship must be based on 

rationalized medical opinion evidence.18 A physician must accurately describe appellant’s work 

duties and medically explain the pathophysiological process by which these duties would have 

caused or aggravated his condition.19

It is appellant’s burden of proof to establish the claim for compensation. The record does 

not contain a medical opinion, based on a complete and accurate history, supported by sound 

 13 M.G., Docket No. 16-0451 (issued March 17, 2017); see also Frank Luis Rembisz, 52 ECAB 147 (2000) 

(medical opinions based on an incomplete history have little probative value). 

14 C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009). 

15 Supra note 13. 

16 L.D., Docket No. 09-1503 (issued April 15, 2010); D.I., 59 ECAB 158 (2007); Daniel O. Vasquez, 57 ECAB 

559 (2006). 

17 Patricia J. Glenn, 53 ECAB 159, 160 (2001). 

18 Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004) (medical evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding the cause 

of an employee’s condition is of diminished probative value on the issue of causal relationship). 

19 H.G., Docket No. 16-1191 (issued November 25, 2016). 
6

medical rationale, on causal relationship between a diagnosed back condition and identified 

employment factors.20 The Board therefore finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof. 

On appeal, appellant disputes OWCP’s conclusion that he did not submit a rationalized 

medical opinion. For the reasons discussed above, the Board finds that appellant did not submit 

sufficient medical evidence 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 established a back injury causally related to factors 

of his federal employment. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated December 22 and September 9, 2016 are affirmed. 

Issued: June 8, 2017 

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 

 20 Supra note 10.