United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.N., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Houston, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1072 

Issued: July 19, 2016 

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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 25, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 4, 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 has established a cervical condition causally related to her 

April 10, 1996 accepted employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

The case has previously been before the Board.2

 The facts and circumstances outlined in 

the prior appeal are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as follows. On 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 Docket No. 14-1845 (issued December 29, 2014). 
2

April 22, 1996 appellant, then a 35-year-old letter sorting machine operator, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 10, 1996 she sustained left arm injuries when a 

machine door fell open and struck her on the arm. OWCP accepted the claim for left upper arm 

contusion, left rotator cuff sprain, and left shoulder dislocation. Appellant returned to work in a 

light-duty position. The record indicates that the light-duty job was withdrawn pursuant to the 

National Reassessment Process, and appellant began receiving wage-loss compensation as of 

September 21, 2010. 

OWCP found that a conflict in the medical evidence existed with respect to causal 

relationship between a cervical condition and the employment injury. An attending physician, 

Dr. Alfredo Sardinas, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, opined in a report dated October 26, 

2010 that both the left shoulder and the cervical spine were injured in the employment injury. 

He noted that the impact caused appellant’s neck to turn rapidly causing a flexion and extension 

injury. Dr. Sardinas indicated that appellant complained of neck pain on September 13, 1996 

when initially treated. He noted that appellant suffered a herniated cervical disc as a result of the 

employment injury. 

In a report dated March 5, 2013, an OWCP medical adviser opined that appellant’s 

cervical condition was not employment related. The medical adviser indicated that a 

February 12, 1997 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan showed no evidence of a disc 

herniation, and there was no evidence of cervical radiculopathy on a March 22, 2002 

electromyogram and nerve conduction velocity studies. According to the medical adviser, C4-5 

and C5-6 disc herniations did not appear until a July 27, 2005 MRI scan. 

A February 3, 2014 statement of accepted facts was prepared and appellant was referred 

to Dr. Frank Barnes, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for an impartial medical evaluation. 

In a report dated March 6, 2014, Dr. Barnes provided a history and results on examination. He 

diagnosed cervical degenerative disc disease. Dr. Barnes opined that the cervical condition was 

not related to the accepted work injury. He indicated that appellant’s cervical condition did not 

arise until several years after her injury and this was confirmed by the treatment notes and lack 

of treatment directed to her neck by treating physicians. 

By decision dated June 18, 2014, OWCP determined that the evidence was insufficient to 

establish a cervical condition causally related to the April 10, 1996 employment injury. In a 

December 29, 2014 decision, affirming the June 18, 2014 decision, the Board found that 

Dr. Barnes’ report represented the weight of the medical evidence. It was noted that counsel at 

that time had argued that the statement of accepted facts did not disclose that appellant had 

complained of neck pain after the April 10, 1996 injury, that Dr. Barnes was not properly 

selected, and that did not resolve the conflict. The Board found that Dr. Barnes was provided a 

complete and accurate background, was properly selected as a referee physician, and provided a 

rationalized medical opinion that resolved the conflict. 

On December 17, 2015 OWCP received a letter of the same date from counsel requesting 

reconsideration. Counsel reviewed the history of the case and reiterated the argument that the 

evidence from Dr. Barnes was insufficient to resolve the conflict. He again argued that the 

statement of accepted facts was incomplete and the opinion of Dr. Barnes was not based on a 

complete background. With respect to the evidence, appellant submitted photographs of the 
3

work area where she alleged that the April 22, 1996 employment injury occurred. She 

resubmitted medical evidence of record, including cervical MRI scans dated February 12, 1997 

and July 27, 2005, an October 26, 2010 report from Dr. Sardinas, and the March 6, 2014 report 

from Dr. Barnes. Appellant also submitted a February 3, 2015 cervical x-ray report from 

Dr. Lorenzo Farolan, a radiologist, diagnosing straightening of the cervical lordotic curve 

consistent with muscle spasms and osteophytes at C3-7. 

By decision dated February 4, 2016, OWCP reviewed the merits of the claim. It found 

that the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant modification of the prior decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including that any disability or specific condition for 

which compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury.4

 Rationalized 

medical opinion evidence is medical evidence that is based on a complete factual and medical 

background, of reasonable medical certainty, and supported by medical rationale explaining the 

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

identified by the claimant. The weight of medical evidence is determined by its reliability, its 

probative value, its convincing quality, the care of the analysis manifested, and the medical 

rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.5

ANALYSIS 

As the factual history indicates, the case has previously been before the Board on a prior 

appeal. The Board reviewed the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of the June 18, 

2014 decision. As the Board explained in its December 29, 2014 decision, the weight of the 

evidence was represented by Dr. Barnes and OWCP properly declined to accept a cervical 

condition. It was noted that appellant had raised the issue of the statement of accepted facts, but 

the Board found Dr. Barnes had a complete background on which to base his opinion. The 

Board will not review evidence and argument that was previously addressed in its prior decision. 

With respect to the findings made in the Board’s December 29, 2014 decision, those matters are 

res judicata absent any further review by OWCP.6

The new evidence submitted on reconsideration were pictures of the accident site and a 

February 3, 2015 cervical x-ray diagnosing straightening of the cervical lordotic curve consistent 

with muscle spasms and osteophytes at C3-7. This evidence is insufficient to establish a cervical 

condition causally related to the April 10, 1996 employment injury. The issue is a medical issue 

and there must be rationalized medical evidence establishing a diagnosed cervical condition 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

4 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

5 Jennifer Atkerson, 55 ECAB 317, 319 (2004). 

6 See W.F., Docket No. 15-1208 (issued October 23, 2015); see also Robert G. Burns, 57 ECAB 657 (2006). 
4

causally related to the employment injury. The cervical x-ray does not provide probative 

medical evidence on this issue. 

It is appellant’s burden of proof to establish that the diagnosed cervical condition is 

causally related to the accepted employment injury. Based on the evidence of record, appellant 

has not met her burden of proof in this case. 

On appeal appellant argues that the pictures and medical evidence of record are sufficient 

to establish her claim. For the reasons noted, the Board finds she has not met 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 not established a cervical condition causally related to 

her April 10, 1996 employment injury. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated February 4, 2016 is affirmed. 

Issued: July 19, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board