United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.R., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL 

RESEARCH LABRATORY, Washington, DC, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1849 

Issued: September 26, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 19, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 3, 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 occupational 

disease claim causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 26, 2016 appellant, a 38-year-old electrical engineer, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed a respiratory condition due to exposure to 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

mold in the workplace. He stated that his office experienced severe flooding in 2015 and 

significant mold and mildew were found growing in his office. Appellant claimed that he 

developed symptoms of hoarseness, persistent coughing, sore throat, and occasional loss of voice 

as a result. He submitted a photograph of the mold and stated that at his annual physical 

examination, his general practitioner indicated that his complaints were not symptoms of a cold 

and that a pulmonologist later confirmed that the condition was related to mold exposure. 

Appellant indicated that he first became aware of his condition on August 5, 2015 and related it 

to his federal employment on January 8, 2016. He did not stop work. 

In a March 22, 2016 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of his claim and 

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

Appellant submitted a narrative statement reiterating the factual history of his claim (rd 

4-14-16) and a February 17, 2016 report from Aerosol Monitoring & Analysis, Inc. confirming 

the existence of mold in the workplace. 

In an April 12, 2016 e-mail message B.D., appellant’s supervisor, wrote that he concurred 

with appellant’s claims about the events that transpired relating to mold problems in his office 

and the dates of flooding. He further indicated that appellant was exposed continuously while at 

work until such time that the mold was discovered. 

Dr. Depak Soni, a pulmonologist, examined appellant on April 8, 2016 and diagnosed 

cough, wheezing, reactive airway disease, and posterior rhinorrhea. He indicated that appellant’s 

current symptoms were due to exposure to mold in the workplace. Dr. Soni explained that mold 

exposure was a well-known trigger for wheezing and reactive airway disease. 

By decision dated May 3, 2016, OWCP found that the medical evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish causal relationship between appellant’s diagnosed conditions and factors 

of his federal employment. 

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, and that an injury3 was sustained in the performance 

of duty. These are the essential elements of each compensation claim, regardless of whether the 

claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in a claim for an 

occupational disease, an employee must submit the following: (1) a factual statement identifying 

 2 Id. 

3

 OWCP’s regulations define an occupational disease or illness as a condition produced by the work environment 

over a period longer than a single workday or shift. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q). 

4 See O.W., Docket No. 09-2110 (issued April 22, 2010); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 
3

employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the 

disease or condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or 

condition for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the 

diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the employee.5

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical 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 nature 

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

identified by the employee.6

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish respiratory 

conditions in the performance of duty. Appellant submitted a statement in which he identified 

the factors of employment that he believed caused the condition, including exposure to mold and 

mildew, which OWCP accepted as factual. However, in order to establish a claim that he 

sustained an employment-related injury, he must also submit rationalized medical evidence 

which explains how his medical conditions were either caused or aggravated by the implicated 

employment factors.7 The medical evidence appellant submitted fails to establish that federal 

employment factors caused or aggravated his respiratory conditions. 

In his report, Dr. Soni diagnosed a cough, wheezing, reactive airway disease, and 

posterior rhinorrhea and opined that appellant’s conditions were due to exposure to mold in the 

workplace. He noted that mold exposure is a well-known trigger for wheezing and reactive 

airway disease. However, Dr. Soni failed to provide a rationalized opinion explaining how 

factors of appellant’s federal employment, such as exposure to mold and mildew, caused or 

aggravated his respiratory conditions. He noted that appellant’s conditions occurred while he 

was at work, but such generalized statements do not establish causal relationship because they 

merely repeat appellant’s allegations and are unsupported by adequate medical rationale 

explaining how his physical activity at work actually caused or aggravated the diagnosed 

conditions.8

 The Board has held that the mere fact that appellant’s symptoms arose during a 

period of employment or produce symptoms revelatory of an underlying condition does not 

establish a causal relationship between appellant’s conditions and his employment factors.9

 

Lacking thorough medical rationale on the issue of causal relationship, the Board finds that 

 5 See D.R., Docket No. 09-1723 (issued May 20, 2010). See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); 

Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

6 See O.W., supra note 3. 

7 See A.C., Docket No. 08-1453 (issued November 18, 2008). 

8 See K.W., Docket No. 10-0098 (issued September 10, 2010). 

9 See Richard B. Cissel, 32 ECAB 1910, 1917 (1981); William Nimitz, Jr., 30 ECAB 567, 570 (1979). 
4

Dr. Soni’s report is insufficient to establish that appellant sustained an employment-related 

injury.10

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence sufficient to establish that 

he sustained an injury causally related to the accepted employment factors, he failed to meet his 

burden of proof to establish a claim. 

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 that he 

developed respiratory conditions causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 3, 2016 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 26, 2017 

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 

 10 See E.V., Docket No. 15-1759 (issued January 8, 2016) (where the Board found that the employee was exposed 

to black mold at her workplace, but failed to submit sufficient medical evidence to establish that her diagnosed 

pneumonia condition was causally related to her exposure to mold at work).