United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.O., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, AIR 

MOBILITY COMMAND, RANDOLPH AIR 

FORCE BASE, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0311 

Issued: June 14, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Jason S. Lomax, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 27, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a June 1, 

2015 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1

 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.3

 

                                                             1

 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from June 1, 2015, the date of OWCP’s last decision, is 

November 30, 2015. Since using December 8, 2015, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the postmark is considered the date of filing. The date of 

the U.S. Postal Service postmark is November 27, 2015, rendering the appeal timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(f)(1). 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

3

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence after OWCP rendered its June 1, 2015 decision. 

The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. 

Therefore, this additional evidence cannot be considered by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 510.2(c)(1). 
2 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish neck, back, left hip, 

and left shoulder conditions causally related to a February 24, 2012 employment incident. 

On appeal, counsel contends that: (1) OWCP improperly excluded from consideration 

prior evidence of record; and (2) OWCP failed to further develop the medical evidence when 

appellant established a prima facie claim. Appellant’s counsel argues that the medical evidence 

of record is sufficient to establish that appellant sustained cervical and lumbar strains, 

exacerbation of cervical spondylosis at C5-6 and C6-7, and cervical radiculitis at C5 and C6. 

Alternatively, he requests that the Board remand the case to OWCP for further medical 

development on the issue of causal relationship. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 24, 2012 appellant, a 52-year-old powered support systems mechanic, filed 

a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging an injury as a result of disconnecting a conductor 

from a generator at work. He alleged that on that date the cable fell and caused stinging to his 

upper neck, left shoulder, left hip, and upper back. On the claim form, the employing 

establishment controverted the claim indicating that if a member disconnected one conductor it 

was impossible that a cable would fall and, if anything had fallen, it would have been the 

conductor itself which only weighed one pound. 

An OWCP Form CA-16, authorization for examination, was issued by the employing 

establishment on February 24, 2012. Appellant was authorized to visit the occupational health 

clinic. He submitted a February 26, 2012 report from Dr. Priya Yellayi, a Board-certified family 

practitioner and chief of the occupational health clinic, in which appellant was diagnosed with 

left-sided musculoskeletal back sprain and left hip contusion. Appellant was advised to stay off 

work until February 29, 2012. Dr. Yellayi noted that appellant had a sudden pain while moving 

a cable on February 24, 2012. 

In a February 27, 2012 narrative statement, appellant noted that he was sent out to 

relocate a power cable from an emergency generator. The cable was a large, four-conductor 

balcony cable which was heavy. As appellant was removing one of the conductors, the weight of 

the cable caused him to twist to the side. He dropped the cable and felt a stinging in his upper 

neck, left shoulder area, left hip area, and upper back. Appellant drove back to the shop and 

hoped the pain would subside, but it became increasingly more painful. 

Appellant submitted hospital records from Lourdes Medical Center in Browns Mills, 

New Jersey, dated February 24, 2012. Dr. Michael Dyce, a Board-certified emergency medicine 

physician, noted that appellant presented with complaints of being twisted by a large 200 to 

300-pound cable while working on February 24, 2012 and sustained an injury to his left side 

while lifting the large cord to a generator. He diagnosed hip contusion, neck strain, elevated 

blood pressure, and concussion (unspecified) and advised that appellant was capable of returning 

to light-duty work in four days. 
3 

In a February 24, 2012 letter, the employing establishment related that appellant informed 

his supervisor that day that there was a problem with one of the load terminals on the generator 

in Building 1703 and that it needed to be replaced. The supervisor told appellant that they had 

parts in the supply room area and that he did not want appellant to go back out to the generator to 

replace the part. Shortly, thereafter, he presented appellant with termination paperwork. 

Appellant departed the shop and shortly thereafter returned with a claim form alleging that he 

had sustained an injury earlier in the morning while working on the generator. After he reported 

the injury, the supervisor went out to inspect the generator in Building 1703 and discovered that 

“only one conductor out of the six that makes up the power cable was disconnected and the cable 

was still up.” The employing establishment argued that, if only one conductor had been 

disconnected it would not fall and, even if all of the conductors had been disconnected, it could 

only fall approximately 12 to 16 inches. It further noted that the cable only weighed 

approximately five pounds per foot, so at the most the cable would only weigh seven to nine 

pounds, which contradicted appellant’s account of how he was injured. The record contains 

photographs of the cable and generator in question. 

In a March 13, 2012 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of his claim and 

afforded him 30 days to submit additional evidence and respond to its inquiries. 

Subsequently, appellant submitted a February 27, 2012 narrative statement explaining 

that the generator was initially connected improperly and he had already removed and reattached 

three of the four conductors. The fourth conductor would not reach the split bolt/kerney and the 

main cable had to be lifted and pushed through the cable access hole so that the last conductor 

could reach the last kerney. Appellant stated that he was lifting the complete cable and pushing 

it through the access hole. The part of the cable that he was rearranging was extremely heavy 

and as he was pushing the cable, it slipped, and its momentum twisted his body sideways, 

causing extreme pain to the left-side of his body. 

In a February 27, 2012 report, Dr. Yellayi noted that appellant had a history of an injury 

to his upper back, left hip, and left shoulder when he was unplugging a six-prong cable. 

Appellant unplugged one part only and did not unplug the rest. He suddenly felt a sharp left side 

pain, could not move his left arm, and had great difficulty walking. 

On March 29, 2012 Dr. Petronilo Seares, Jr., a Board-certified internist, reported that 

appellant was seen for the first time on March 1, 2012. Appellant claimed that he injured his left 

hip and left shoulder while lifting a heavy cable at work on February 24, 2012. Dr. Seares found 

that appellant’s left shoulder had less pain, but his left hip still hurt. Appellant was able to 

ambulate only for a short distance and had to stop because of severe pain. Standing and sitting 

for any length of time, around 10 minutes, was also a problem for him. Dr. Seares indicated that 

he read appellant’s February 27, 2012 narrative statement and opined that the accident at work 

caused the injury to his left shoulder and left hip temporarily. He advised that appellant was 

totally disabled until April 24, 2012. 

In an April 6, 2012 letter, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim. It 

noted that appellant’s supervisor had inspected the work area and observed that the cable 

appellant alleged had fallen, and thus caused his injuries, was still connected. Appellant’s 

supervisor submitted visual evidence, including photographs of the work area, demonstrating 
4 

that the entire cable could not fall unless all of the conductors were disconnected. He further 

stated that, even if the cable were to fall, it only weighed between seven to nine pounds and 

would only fall 12 inches before it landed on the base of the generator. 

By decision dated April 13, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as he had failed to 

establish that the injury or events occurred as alleged. 

On May 10, 2012 appellant’s counsel requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative and submitted additional diagrams and photographs of the conductor. 

A telephonic hearing was held before an OWCP hearing representative on 

August 16, 2012. Appellant testified that the cable was approximately six inches thick, weighed 

approximately 20 pounds per foot, and that there was approximately 90 feet of cable. He 

explained that while he was repairing the cable he did not have enough length on the cable to 

move it to the last conductor, so he lifted it up from the outside to push it through the access 

hole. Appellant had the whole weight of the cable in between his legs and had to reach around 

with one hand while he held the other cable in his legs. As he was reaching up, he reached to the 

left because that was where the access door was and then felt a sudden onset of pain in his back, 

wrist, shoulder, neck, and hip. The cable fell and twisted appellant. Appellant let it go, stood 

there for a couple minutes, and then went back to the shop. 

Appellant submitted a May 15, 2012 magnetic resonance imaging scan of the cervical 

spine, which demonstrated cervical spondylosis at C5-7, chronic sinusitis, and indeterminate 

cystic lesion within the right cerebral hemisphere. He also submitted a July 27, 2012 report from 

Dr. Seares who reiterated that appellant’s conditions were causally related to his federal duties. 

In an August 7, 2012 report, Dr. Natacha Falcon, a Board-certified physiatrist, diagnosed 

left C5-6 radiculitis and left foraminal stenosis at C5-7. He noted that appellant had an injury at 

work on February 12 or 13, 2012 where he was lifting generator cables and felt a sudden neck 

pain with left radicular arm symptoms. 

By decision dated October 25, 2012, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed, as 

modified, the April 13, 2012 decision finding that the factual evidence established that the work 

incident occurred, but the medical evidence was insufficient to establish a causal relationship 

between appellant’s diagnosed conditions and the work incident. 

On October 17, 2013 appellant’s counsel requested reconsideration and submitted a 

September 5, 2013 report from Dr. Laura E. Ross, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who 

diagnosed status post cervical and lumbar spine sprain and strain and exacerbation of cervical 

spondylosis with left cervical radiculitis in the C5 and C6 distribution. Dr. Ross noted that 

appellant sustained a work-related injury on February 24, 2012 while moving a generator cable. 

Appellant stated that he was trying to insert the generator cable into a hole that was above his 

head. He was holding the remaining cable between his knees to support the weight of the cable 

and reached overhead and sideways when he felt immediate pain in his neck, back, left hip, and 

left shoulder. Dr. Ross opined that his cervical and lumbar spine conditions were causally 

related to the February 24, 2012 employment incident. She noted that although appellant had 
5 

cervical spondylosis that clearly predated this work-related injury, his condition was exacerbated 

by the work injury and caused him to experience pain to a formerly nonbothersome condition. 

By decision dated January 16, 2014, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. 

On June 24, 2014 appellant’s counsel requested reconsideration and submitted a June 20, 

2014 addendum from Dr. Ross who opined that given appellant’s description of the injury and 

his body mechanics at the time of the incident, she determined that the February 24, 2012 

incident was the direct cause of his injuries. Dr. Ross noted that appellant sought immediate 

medical treatment for his injuries and other physicians had provided the same medical opinion on 

causal relationship. 

By decision dated June 1, 2015, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his 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 injury4

 was sustained in the performance of duty, as 

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

causally related to the employment injury.5 

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 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.6 

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 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 

                                                             4

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

series of events or 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). 

5 See T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). 

6 Id. 
6 

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors 

identified by the employee.7

 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP has accepted that the employment incident of February 24, 2012 occurred at the 

time, in the place, and in the manner alleged. The issue is whether appellant’s neck, back, left 

hip, and left shoulder conditions resulted from the February 24, 2012 employment incident. The 

Board finds that he did not meet his burden of proof to establish a causal relationship between 

the conditions for which compensation is claimed and the employment incident. 

On February 24, 2012 Dr. Dyce diagnosed a left hip contusion, neck strain, and 

concussion and found that appellant was injured while lifting a large cord to a generator at work 

on February 24, 2012. Similarly, on February 26, 2012 Dr. Yellayi diagnosed left-sided 

musculoskeletal back sprain and left hip contusion and found that appellant had a sudden pain 

while moving a cable on February 24, 2012. The Board finds that Drs. Dyce and Yellayi failed 

to provide a rationalized opinion explaining how factors of appellant’s federal employment, such 

as moving a cable at work, caused or aggravated his neck, back, and hip conditions. The 

physicians noted that his conditions occurred while he was at work, but such generalized 

statements do not establish causal relationship because they merely repeat his allegations and are 

unsupported by adequate medical rationale.8

 Drs. Dyce and Yellayi failed to provide an opinion 

adequately addressing how the February 24, 2012 employment incident contributed to 

appellant’s conditions. 

In her reports, Dr. Ross diagnosed status post cervical and lumbar spine sprain and strain 

and exacerbation of cervical spondylosis with left cervical radiculitis in the C5 and C6 

distribution. She noted that appellant sustained a work-related injury on February 24, 2012 while 

moving a generator cable above his head and opined that his cervical and lumbar spine 

conditions were causally related to the February 24, 2012 employment incident. Dr. Ross noted 

that although he had cervical spondylosis that, clearly predated this work-related injury, his 

condition was exacerbated by the work injury and caused him to have pain to a formerly 

nonbothersome condition. She noted that appellant’s conditions occurred while he was at work, 

but as noted above such generalized statements do not establish causal relationship.9

 The Board 

finds that Dr. Ross did not provide a sufficient medical rationale explaining how his cervical 

conditions were caused or aggravated by moving a cable at work on February 24, 2012. The 

need for rationale is particularly important as Dr. Ross indicated that appellant had a preexisting 

cervical condition. Therefore, the Board finds that the reports from her are insufficient to 

establish causal relationship. 

On March 29, 2012 Dr. Seares opined that the February 24, 2012 employment incident 

caused a temporary injury to appellant’s left shoulder and left hip. However, he also failed to 

                                                             7 Id. 

8 See K.W., Docket No. 10-98 (issued September 10, 2010). 

9 Id. 
7 

provide a rationalized opinion explaining how the February 24, 2012 work incident caused or 

contributed to a diagnosed medical condition. Thus, the Board finds that the report from 

Dr. Seares is insufficient to establish that appellant sustained an injury in the performance of 

duty on February 24, 2012. 

Other medical evidence of record is of limited probative value as it does not specifically 

address whether appellant’s conditions are attributable to his accepted work incident.10 

On appeal, counsel contends that: (1) OWCP improperly evaluated evidence by 

excluding from consideration prior evidence of record; and (2) OWCP failed to further develop 

the medical evidence when appellant established a prima facie claim. Appellant’s counsel 

argues that the medical evidence of record is sufficient to establish that he sustained a cervical 

and lumbar strain, exacerbation of cervical spondylosis at C5-6 and C6-7, and cervical radiculitis 

at C5 and C6. Alternatively, counsel requests that the Board remand the case to OWCP for 

further medical development on the issue of causal relationship. Based on the findings and 

reasons stated above, the Board finds that counsel’s arguments are not substantiated. The Board 

finds that OWCP properly evaluated the evidence of record in its obligations to properly 

adjudicate appellant’s claim. As appellant has not submitted sufficiently rationalized medical 

evidence to support his allegation that he sustained an injury causally related to the February 24, 

2012 employment incident, he has failed to meet his burden of proof to establish a claim for 

compensation. Consequently, the Board will affirm OWCP’s June 1, 2015 decision. 

The Board also notes that the employing establishment issued appellant a CA-16 form on 

February 24, 2012 authorizing medical treatment. The Board has held that where an employing 

establishment properly executes a CA-16 form, which authorizes medical treatment as a result of 

an employee’s claim for an employment-related injury, it creates a contractual obligation, which 

does not involve the employee directly, to pay the cost of the examination or treatment regardless 

of the action taken on the claim.11 Although OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an injury, it did 

not address whether he is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses pursuant to the CA-16 

form. Upon return of the case record, it should further address this matter. 

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 neck, back, 

left hip, and left shoulder conditions causally related to a February 24, 2012 employment 

incident. 

                                                             10 See K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); Linda I. Sprague, 48 ECAB 386 (1997) (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). 

11 See D.M., Docket No. 13-535 (issued June 6, 2013). See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.300, 10.304. 
8 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 1, 2015 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 14, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board