United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.S., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 

Boston, MA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1386 

Issued: March 21, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 21, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 13, 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.2

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 Appellant timely requested oral argument pursuant to section 501.5(b) of Board’s Rules of Procedure. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). By order dated January 17, 2017, the Board exercised its discretion and denied the request, 

finding that the arguments on appeal could adequately be addressed based on the case record. Order Denying 

Request for Oral Argument, Docket No. 16-1386 (issued January 17, 2017). The Board’s Rules of Procedure

provide that any appeal in which a request for oral argument is not granted by the Board will proceed to a decision 

based on the case record and any pleadings submitted. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). 
2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish whether he 

sustained Meniere’s disease and/or chronic vertigo, dizziness, migraines, and headaches causally 

related to factors of his federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 1, 2015 appellant, then a 51-year-old immigration service officer, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained Meniere’s disease with 

chronic vertigo, dizziness, migraines, and headaches due to factors of his federal employment. 

He stopped work on April 15, 2015 and returned to work on April 17, 2015. 

In a report dated March 23, 2012, Dr. Namita Murthy, an otolaryngologist, evaluated 

appellant for episodes of vertigo occurring twice daily. She diagnosed chronic vertigo likely 

from Meniere’s disease and referred him for audiological and vestibular testing. Dr. John E. 

Gooey, a Board-certified otolaryngologist, reviewed the report and concurred with Dr. Murthy’s 

findings. 

On July 5, 2012 Dr. Kenneth Grundfast, also a Board-certified otolaryngologist, noted 

that appellant related a history of dizziness, loss of balance, and hearing loss on the right side 

that began in the 1990s while he was in the military. He complained of increased symptoms with 

dizziness two to three times a week. Dr. Grundfast related, “On exam[ination] nystagmus was 

noted and [appellant] seemed to have difficulty tracking with his eyes and seemed to have 

difficulty maintaining conjugate gaze.” He further opined, “I do not have the impression that he 

has Meniere’s disease or a specific audi-vestibular system disorder. I will request consultation 

with a neuroophthalmologist.”3 

Dr. Gooey, in a progress report dated September 6, 2012, noted appellant’s history of 

chronic vertigo beginning in 1990 while he was in the military, with episodes occurring two to 

three times a week since 2005. He indicated that he had not received a definite diagnosis but 

was “variously told that he has had problems with viral infection, high blood pressure, stress, 

Meniere’s disease and TIA [transient ischemic attack] in the past.” Dr. Gooey advised that the 

diagnosis was uncertain but noted that appellant had normal neuroimaging which showed a lack 

of central pathology. 

Appellant received treatment on December 18, 2012 at the emergency department from 

Dr. Seth N. Schonwald, a Board-certified internist, for complaints of lightheadedness and 

dizziness for the past three weeks. Dr. Schonwald noted that he had hypertension and got dizzy 

after taking his medication. 

On April 10, 2013 Dr. Nicolas Y. Bu-Saba, a Board-certified otolaryngologist, discussed 

appellant’s history of chronic vertigo and noted that he had not received a specific diagnosis. He 

determined that appellant’s symptoms suggested migraines and recommended a migraine diet. 

 3

 An otoneurologic examination found transient nystagmus. An audiologist advised that testing showed abnormal 

phase leads at certain frequencies and recommended further evaluation and a follow up “regarding positive vertebral 

artery screening and positive cervical vertigo screening.” 
3

Dr. Christopher Hansen, an osteopath, on October 25, 2013 related: 

“[Appellant] has been seen for the symptoms of vertigo and headaches by 

numerous physicians throughout the VA [Veterans Affairs] system and undergone 

multiple testing modalities to find the etiology of these symptoms; however, 

heretofore we have not been able to reach a diagnosis. Certainly this issue causes 

large problems in [his] day-to-day life and he is going through the correct steps to 

help his situation.” 

 In a progress report dated March 31, 2014, Dr. Raymond Finn, an internist, evaluated 

appellant for complaints of dizziness.4

 OWCP, on May 21, 2015, requested that appellant submit additional factual and medical 

information, including a detailed report from his attending physician addressing the causal 

relationship between any diagnosed condition and the implicated work factors.5 

By decision dated June 25, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as he had not 

submitted sufficient factual information to adequately identify the employment factors to which 

he attributed his condition. It further found that the medical evidence of record failed to offer a 

rationalized opinion on causation. 

Appellant, on July 6, 2015, requested a telephone hearing. 

In a narrative statement dated July 6, 2015, appellant indicated that he was a physician 

and advised that his Meniere’s disease was “aggravated at work due to previous history and 

present sign and symptoms with the said condition. The disease is associated with other medical 

conditions and factors contributed to the onset and worsening of my symptoms.” Appellant 

related that his chronic Meniere’s disease caused difficulty working and had comorbidities. He 

advised that his Meniere’s disease was associated with viral infection, migraines, TIA, ear 

infections, and hypertension, and that he had received diagnoses of Meniere’s disease, benign 

paroxysmal positional vertigo, generalized anxiety disorder, and orthostatic hypotension. 

Appellant maintained that he had continued symptoms of dizziness, headaches, migraines, and 

vertigo. 

At the hearing, held on March 9, 2016, appellant described Meniere’s disease. He related 

that activities at work contributed to his condition. Appellant indicated that working on cases, 

including performing research from 2005 to 2015, aggravated his condition. The hearing 

representative advised him that he needed to submit medical evidence explaining how such 

duties caused or contributed to his condition. 

In a March 15, 2016 statement, appellant provided a history of his medical conditions 

from 1991 onward. He asserted that work aggravated his Meniere’s disease and that his 

symptoms increased at work “due to activities and other unknown etiologies.” 

 4

 The record also contains a page from an undated report noting hospital admission for hypertension, anxiety, 

chronic vertigo, and TIA. 

5

 Audiological testing performed June 8, 2015 indicated that appellant might have hearing loss. A letter dated 

June 8, 2015 from a psychology intern indicated that appellant participated in pain management meetings. 
4

By decision dated May 13, 2016, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the June 25, 

2015 decision. She found that appellant had established the occurrence of the work factors to 

which he attributed his condition, but did not submit medical evidence supporting that 

employment caused or contributed to his condition. 

On appeal appellant argues that the medical evidence shows that he had multiple 

diagnoses and that his condition had comorbidities. 

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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation; that an injury was sustained while 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.6 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.7

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;8 (2) a 

factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the 

presence or occurrence of the disease or condition;9 and (3) medical evidence establishing 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.10

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship generally is rationalized 

medical opinion evidence. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and 

medical background of the claimant,11 must be one of reasonable medical certainty12 explaining 

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

factors identified by the claimant.13

 6 Tracey P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

7 See Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 

8 Michael R. Shaffer, 55 ECAB 386 (2004). 

9 Marlon Vera, 54 ECAB 834 (2003); Roger Williams, 52 ECAB 468 (2001). 

10 Beverly A. Spencer, 55 ECAB 501 (2004). 

11 Tomas Martinez, 54 ECAB 623 (2003); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001). 

12 John W. Montoya, 54 ECAB 306 (2003). 

13 Judy C. Rogers, 54 ECAB 693 (2003). 
5

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that employment activities, including research and case work, caused 

or contributed to his Meniere’s disease with associated headaches, migraines, vertigo, and 

dizziness. OWCP accepted the occurrence of the claimed work factors. The issue, therefore, is 

whether the medical evidence of record establishes causal relationship between the claimed work 

factors and the medical conditions. 

The Board finds that appellant has not established that his diagnosed conditions are 

causally related to the accepted factors of employment. Appellant failed to submit any medical 

evidence containing an opinion on causal relationship. 

On March 23, 2012 Dr. Murthy discussed appellant’s history of vertigo since the 1980s. 

She diagnosed chronic vertigo likely due to Meniere’s disease. Dr. Gooey concurred with 

Dr. Murthy’s findings. Appellant received treatment from Dr. Grundfast on July 5, 2012 for 

dizziness. Dr. Grundfast did not believe that appellant had Meniere’s disease and referred him 

for an ocular examination. On September 6, 2012 Dr. Gooey evaluated appellant for chronic 

vertigo beginning in 1990 while he was in the military, noting that he had received a variety of 

diagnoses including a TIA, high blood pressure, stress, Meniere’s disease, and a viral infection. 

He opined that the diagnosis was uncertain and indicated that neuroimaging was normal. 

Dr. Schonwald treated appellant in the emergency room on December 18, 2012 for dizziness. 

None of these physicians addressed the cause of his condition or its relationship to his federal 

employment. 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.14

On April 10, 2013 Dr. Bu-Saba noted that appellant had a history of chronic vertigo with 

no definite diagnosis. He opined that his symptoms suggested a migraine. On October 25, 2013 

Dr. Hansen advised that physicians had not specifically found the cause of appellant’s headaches 

and vertigo. He noted that the condition resulted in difficulty for appellant in performing his 

daily activities. On March 31, 2014 Dr. Finn treated appellant for dizziness. None of the 

physicians addressed whether a causal relationship existed between a diagnosed condition and 

the identified work factors. Appellant has the burden of proof to submit medical evidence from 

his physician reviewing the factors of employment identified as causing his condition and 

explaining how, with medical rationale, employment factors caused or aggravated any diagnosed 

condition.15 He has not submitted such evidence and thus failed to meet his burden of proof. 

On appeal appellant contends that the medical evidence supports that he has numerous 

diagnoses and that his disease has comorbidities. Again, however, he failed to submit medical 

evidence addressing whether particular employment activities caused or aggravated a diagnosed 

condition. 

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 and 

20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

 14 See S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009); Conard Hightower, 54 ECAB 796 (2003). 

15 See D.W., Docket No. 14-0662 (issued June 23, 2014); Robert Broome, 55 ECAB 339 (2004). 
6

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established Meniere’s disease and/or chronic 

vertigo, dizziness, migraines, and headaches as causally related to factors of his federal 

employment. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 13, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 21, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board