United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Paulina, LA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-0637

Issued: May 11, 2018

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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 30, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 8, 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 met her burden of proof to establish disability on or after

October 6, 2016 due to her accepted May 4, 2016 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 13, 2016 appellant, then a 52-year-old officer in charge, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she sustained an injury while at work on May 4, 2016. She 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

indicated that she was carrying box flats when she stepped on a box and twisted the left side of her 

body, including her left leg/foot. Appellant did not stop work, but began working in a limitedduty position for the employing establishment without wage loss.

In an authorization form for examination and/or treatment (Form CA-16) dated May 6, 

2016, an individual with an illegible signature noted in the “attending physician’s report” section 

that appellant reported tripping over a box while carrying a container. The author diagnosed low 

back pain with sciatica due to the incident and found that appellant could work as of May 6, 2016 

with a restriction of lifting no more than 10 pounds.2

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a sprain of ligaments of her lumbar spine.

In a July 20, 2016 narrative report, Dr. William S. Johnson, an attending Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, indicated that appellant reported experiencing pain in her left lower back and 

left lower extremity since her May 4, 2016 accident.

3

 He noted that the reported left lower 

extremity pain had a nondermatomal distribution. Dr. Johnson advised that, upon physical 

examination, appellant exhibited tenderness on palpation of her left lumbar region and posterior 

superior iliac spine, left lumbar muscle spasms, and positive leg raise test of her left leg. He

diagnosed acute left low back pain and lumbar sprain. In a July 20, 2016 form report, Dr. Johnson

posited that appellant could perform modified work.

In August 2016, appellant began to participate in OWCP-approved sessions with a physical 

therapist on a periodic basis.

In an October 5, 2016 report, Dr. Johnson noted that appellant reported “somewhat worse”

pain in her left lower back and left lower extremity and indicated, “In general, the current spine 

problem is basically stable and unchanged since its outset.” The physical examination on that date 

revealed left lumbar muscle spasms and tenderness on palpation of the left lumbar region and 

posterior superior iliac spine. Dr. Johnson diagnosed left S1 radicular pain, lumbar sprain, acute 

low back pain, and possible herniated disc (worsening). He recommended that appellant engage 

in activity modification and continue with physical therapy at home.

In an October 5, 2016 form report, Dr. Johnson diagnosed lumbar strain and a possible 

herniated disc and checked a box marked “no work for now.” On October 6, 2016 he filed a 

request for appellant to undergo a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan.

Appellant stopped work on October 6, 2016. On October 24, 2016 she filed a claim for 

compensation (Form CA-7) claiming that she was disabled for the period October 6 to 14, 2016 

due to her May 4, 2016 employment injury. Appellant subsequently filed additional claims for 

compensation claiming disability for intermittent periods between October 17 and 

November 25, 2016.

 

2

In a May 4, 2016 duty status report (Form CA-17), the same individual recommended various work restrictions, 

including no engaging in climbing, kneeling, and twisting.

3 Appellant reported that her left lower back pain was worse than her left lower extremity pain.
3

In a November 2, 2016 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit 

additional evidence in support of her disability claim, including a physician’s opinion supported 

by a medical explanation as to how the May 4, 2016 employment injury caused disability on or 

after October 6, 2016. It further indicated that such an opinion should discuss any clinical findings 

showing that the May 4, 2016 employment-related condition had materially worsened to the point 

that she was disabled. OWCP provided appellant 30 days to submit the requested evidence.

In response to the development letter, appellant submitted a November 16, 2016 report 

from Dr. Johnson who described the physical examination performed on that date. Dr. Johnson 

noted that she reported her lower back and left lower extremity pain had “not changed with time”

and that her symptoms were only present on an intermittent basis. The physical examination on 

November 16, 2016 showed left lumbar muscle spasms and tenderness on palpation of the left 

lumbar region, left sciatic notch, and left posterior superior iliac spine. Dr. Johnson diagnosed left 

S1 radicular pain, lumbar sprain, acute low back pain, and degenerative disc disease at L4-5 and 

L5-S1. He recommended that appellant engage in activity modification.

In a November 16, 2016 form report, Dr. Johnson diagnosed lumbar strain and checked a 

box denoting the need for “modified duty; restrictions” as of that date. He noted that appellant 

was restricted from lifting more than 15 pounds or engaging in overhead lifting, pushing, or 

pulling.

The findings of a November 11, 2016 MRI scan of appellant’s low back contained an 

impression of mild degenerative-type changes at L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 with no evidence of focal 

disc herniation or significant central lateral/forminal stenosis.

In a December 8, 2016 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s disability claim because she 

failed to submit medical evidence sufficient to establish disability on or after October 6, 2016 due 

to her May 4, 2016 employment injury. It found that the medical evidence of record did not contain 

a rationalized medical opinion which causally related appellant’s claimed disability to her accepted 

employment injury.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, 

and that any disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related 

to the employment injury.5 In general the term disability under FECA means incapacity because 

 

4 Supra note 1.

5

J.F., Docket No. 09-1061 (issued November 17, 2009).
4

of injury in employment to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of such 

injury.6 This meaning, for brevity, is expressed as disability from work.7 

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed period 

of disability and an employment injury is rationalized medical opinion evidence. The opinion of 

the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, 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 claimant.8

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish disability on or 

after October 6, 2016 due to her May 4, 2016 employment injury.

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a sprain of ligaments of her lumbar spine on 

May 4, 2016 and she continued working after that date in a modified position for the employing 

establishment without wage loss. Appellant fully stopped work on October 6, 2016 and filed a 

claim for compensation alleging that she was disabled beginning October 6, 2016 and continuing 

due to her May 4, 2016 employment injury. 

The Board notes that OWCP properly found that appellant failed to submit medical 

evidence sufficient to establish disability on or after October 6, 2016 due to her May 4, 2016 

employment injury. The medical evidence appellant submitted did not contain a rationalized 

medical opinion addressing the causal relationship between her claimed disability and the accepted 

employment injury.9

In an October 5, 2016 form report, Dr. Johnson diagnosed lumbar strain and possible 

herniated disc and checked a box marked “no work for now.” The submission of this report does 

not establish appellant’s claim for disability on or after October 6, 2016 due to her May 4, 2016 

employment injury because he did not provide any opinion on the causal nature of her disability. 

The Board has held that medical evidence which does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an 

employee’s condition/disability has no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.10

In an October 5, 2016 report, Dr. Johnson noted that the physical examination on that date 

revealed left lumbar muscle spasms and tenderness on palpation of the left lumbar region and 

posterior superior iliac spine. He diagnosed left S1 radicular pain, lumbar sprain, acute low back 

 

6 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f).

7 Roberta L. Kaaumoana, 54 ECAB 150 (2002); see also A.M., Docket No. 09-1895 (issued April 23, 2010).

8 See E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 2010).

9 See D.R., Docket No. 16-0528 (issued August 24, 2016) (finding that a report is of limited probative value 

regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale explaining the relationship between an accepted 

employment injury and claimed condition/disability).

10 See Charles H. Tomaszewski, 39 ECAB 461 (1988).
5

pain, and possible herniated disc (worsening). However, this report also is of no probative value 

regarding appellant’s disability claim because it does not contain any opinion regarding 

disability.11 Moreover, the Board notes that the findings contained in Dr. Johnson’s October 5, 

2016 report are very similar to those found in reports produced prior to her claimed period of 

disability.12 Therefore, the October 5, 2016 report does not show a notable worsening of 

appellant’s medical condition, let alone a worsening of her employment-related condition which 

caused disability on or after October 6, 2016. 

In a November 16, 2016 report, Dr. Johnson indicated that the physical examination 

performed on that date showed left lumbar muscle spasms and tenderness on palpation of the left 

lumbar region, left sciatic notch, and left posterior superior iliac spine. He diagnosed left S1 

radicular pain, lumbar sprain, acute low back pain, and degenerative disc disease at L4-5 and L5-

S1. In a November 16, 2016 form report, Dr. Johnson diagnosed lumbar strain and checked a box 

denoting the need for “modified duty; restrictions” as of that date. He noted that appellant was 

restricted from lifting more than 15 pounds or engaging in overhead lifting, pushing, or pulling.

The submission of these reports does not establish appellant’s claim for disability on or 

after October 6, 2016 due to her May 4, 2016 employment injury because Dr. Johnson did not 

provide any opinion on the cause of her partial disability.13 Moreover, these reports do not otherwise 

show a worsening of her employment-related condition such that she could no longer perform the 

modified work she had been performing without wage loss since her May 4, 2016 employment 

injury.14

Appellant failed to submit medical evidence sufficient to establish disability on or after

October 6, 2016 due to her May 4, 2016 employment injury. OWCP provided her an opportunity 

to submit a medical report showing that she sustained such disability, but she failed to submit this

evidence within the allotted period. For these reasons, appellant has not met her burden of proof 

to establish disability on or after October 6, 2016 due to her May 4, 2016 employment injury.15

 

11 See id.

12 In fact, Dr. Johnson noted, “In general, the current spine problem is basically stable and unchanged since its 

outset.”

13 See supra note 8.

14 In his November 16, 2016 report, Dr. Johnson indicated that appellant reported her lower back and left lower 

extremity pain had “not changed with time” and that her symptoms were only present on an intermittent basis. The 

findings of a November 11, 2016 MRI scan of her low back contained an impression of mild degenerative-type 

changes at L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 with no evidence of focal disc herniation or significant central lateral/forminal 

stenosis. The Board notes that appellant’s claim has not been accepted for degenerative lumbar disease and there is 

no medical evidence of record relating this condition to employment factors.

15 Appellant submitted a Form CA-16 which was completed by an individual with an illegible signature on

May 6, 2016. Where an employing establishment properly executes a Form CA-16 authorizing medical treatment 

related to a claim for a work injury, the form creates a contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee 

directly, to pay for the cost of the examination/treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim. See Tracy P. 

Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003). The period for which treatment is authorized by a Form CA-16 is limited to 60 days 

from the date of issuance, unless terminated earlier by OWCP. See 20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c). 
6

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 her burden of proof to establish disability on or 

after October 6, 2016 due to her accepted May 4, 2016 employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 8, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 11, 2018

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board