United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Brooklyn, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1053

Issued: November 13, 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 April 21, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 13, 2017 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 aggravation of 

lower back conditions causally related to factors of his federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 15, 2016 appellant, then a 65-year-old maintenance mechanic, filed a 

recurrence of disability claim (Form CA-2a) alleging that prior accepted injuries had caused 

disability beginning March 10, 2016. Appellant’s supervisor noted that he was unaware of any 

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

new injury, and that appellant had complained of back pain upon arrival to work, and that 

appellant had previously taken weekly Family and Medical Leave Act absences for his back 

pain. He explained that appellant had a lifting weight limitation and that this injury was a 

recurrence of an injury from 2012.2

In a narrative statement, appellant noted a prior claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx897, 

and explained that, on March 10, 2016, he began work with a low level of back pain, which was 

not unusual due to injuries he had sustained in 2008 and 2012. He noted that he had a push/pull/

lift weight limitation of 20 pounds. On March 10, 2016 appellant cleared tray line jams, which 

he claimed did not exceed his weight limitations the vast majority of the time. He received a call 

to clear a bucket jam from a flat sorter where at least a dozen buckets were stuck due to the fact 

that they were overloaded and overweight. Appellant noted that this situation occurred because 

the mail limitation sensors on the flat sorter were in need of adjustment. He stated that, at the 

time, he was not conscious of the fact that, in order to clear the bucket jam, he would exceed his 

weight limitation. Appellant claimed that this activity aggravated his prior accepted lower back 

injuries to the extent that he was incapacitated from work.

In a statement dated March 15, 2016, a supervisor noted that she felt the claim should be 

treated as a recurrence, but asked for guidance as to whether it should be treated as a new claim. 

She requested that OWCP further develop the case.

In a medical report dated May 9, 2016, Dr. Joshua B. Reimer, Board-certified in sports 

medicine and physical medicine and rehabilitation, reviewed a magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) scan of appellant’s lumbar spine. He diagnosed lumbar neuritis associated with stenosis 

and disc herniation. In an attached work status report, Dr. Reimer recommended work 

restrictions of no heavy lifting, carrying, pushing, or pulling over 20 pounds, and stated that 

appellant could return to work on May 15, 2016. 

In an undated letter, appellant responded to an OWCP development questionnaire related 

to recurrence. He stated that the work he performed either caused his back injury or aggravated 

his preexisting conditions. Appellant noted that the decision to process his claim as a recurrence 

was made by a supervisor. He explained that he did not know why the supervisor connected the 

recurrence to his claim in OWCP File No. xxxxxx897 rather than his claim in OWCP File No.

xxxxxx619. Appellant noted that the supervisor had asked for guidance, but did not receive a 

reply. He expressed dissatisfaction with how the supervisor had handled his claim.

In a report dated March 23, 2016, Dr. Reimer stated that appellant was injured in a 

workplace encounter, when he was pulling on heavy buckets. He performed a physical 

examination and reviewed appellant’s x-rays of the lumbar spine. Dr. Reimer noted that the 

x-ray demonstrated mild disc dehydration with possibly grade 1 L5-S1 spondylolisthesis and 

mild spondylosis. He stated that appellant was 100 percent disabled from his usual occupation.

In a memorandum to the file dated June 14, 2016, OWCP listed appellant’s prior claims. 

Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx619, accepted on July 2, 2009, it accepted a sprain of the lumbar 

 

2 Attached to the Form CA-2 was an OWCP memorandum dated June 14, 2016 in which OWCP determined that 

appellant’s claim would be treated as a new, occupatial disease claim because new work factors were cited. 
3

region and placed appellant on the daily compensation rolls. Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx525, 

on February 8, 2010, OWCP accepted an occupational disease claim for thoracic or lumbosacral 

neuritis or radiculitis, unspecified, and again placed him on the daily compensation rolls.

On May 11, 2016 appellant accepted an offer of limited duty as a maintenance mechanic 

with restrictions of no pushing, pulling, or lifting over 20 pounds; and no excessive bending 

over. 

By letter dated July 20, 2016, OWCP informed appellant that his claim was being treated 

as a claim for occupational disease. It noted that he had not submitted a physician’s opinion as 

to the cause of his claimed injury, and asked him to respond to a questionnaire. Appellant was 

afforded 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

In a diagnostic report dated April 15, 2016, Dr. Michael Greene, Board-certified in 

diagnostic radiology, examined the results of an MRI scan of appellant’s lumbar spine. He 

stated his opinion that the L2-3 level demonstrated posterior central focal herniation with an 

annular tear causing impingement upon the anterior thecal sac and bilateral neural foramina, with 

displacement of the anterior nerve roots, and canal stenosis; that the L3-4 level demonstrated a 

broad-based disc bulge with right paracentral focal herniation causing impingement upon the 

anterior thecal sac and bilateral neural foramina, right greater than left, and contact with the 

right-sided L4 nerve root; that the L4-5 level demonstrated a broad-based disc bulge causing 

impingement upon the anterior thecal sac and bilateral neural foramina; that the L5-S1 level 

demonstrated bilateral pars defects with grade 1 spondylolisthesis of L5 on S1, with a 

pseudo-disc bulge causing impingement upon the bilateral foramina and contact with the exiting 

bilateral L5 spinal nerves; and that appellant had straightening of the normal lumbar lordosis 

indicative of muscular spasm..

In a medical report dated August 1, 2016, Dr. Reimer provided results on examination 

and diagnosed lumbar neuritis, spondylosis, spinal stenosis, and spondylolisthesis. He related,

“Please note it is my opinion that [appellant’s] workplace event of pushing heavy buckets while 

working on March 10, 2016 did aggravate the underlying spinal condition of stenosis and 

spondylolisthesis contributing to neurotic symptoms in the lower extremity and a flare in his 

overall pain.”

On August 6, 2016 appellant responded to OWCP’s development questionnaire. He 

stated that he believed that a repetition of performing the same type of assignment he performed 

on March 10, 2016 had caused his claimed injuries. Appellant noted that he first became aware 

of his condition in 2008, for which he filed OWCP File No. xxxxxx619, and again in 2012 filed 

OWCP File number xxxxxx897. 

By decision dated September 12, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that he 

had not submitted a sufficiently rationalized medical opinion establishing that his claimed 

conditions were causally related to factors of his federal employment.

On October 7, 2016 appellant requested a review of the written record before an OWCP 

hearing representative. 
4

In a report dated October 5, 2016, Dr. Reimer examined appellant and diagnosed spinal 

stenosis and neuritic lower extremity pain, stable. He again related, “As it has been previously 

indicated on chart notes, I will iterate that the injury, which took place on March 10, 2016 when 

[appellant] was pushing and manipulating heavy buckets, did aggravate his spinal stenosis and 

spondylolisthesis contributing to his neuritis symptoms in his lower extremities.”

In a statement dated October 5, 2016, appellant argued that the fact that his employment 

caused his diagnosed medical conditions was proven and accepted in his 2008 claim, OWCP File 

No. xxxxxx619. 

By decision dated March 13, 2017, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

September 12, 2016 decision. She found that the alleged employment factors occurred as 

alleged, but that appellant had not submitted rationalized medical evidence to establish that the 

accepted employment factors caused a low back condition. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3has 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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation; that an injury was sustained while 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.4 These are the essential elements of every compensation claim regardless of 

whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or occupational disease.5

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; (2) a factual 

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

or occurrence of the disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that 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. 

The claimant has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of reliable, probative, and 

substantial evidence that the condition for which compensation is sought is causally related to a 

specific employment incident or to specific conditions of employment.6 An award of 

compensation may not be based on appellant’s belief of causal relationship. Neither the mere 

fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment nor the belief that 

 

3

Supra note 1. 

4 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278-79 (2001); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989).

5 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313, 315 (1999).

6 Roma A. Mortenson-Kindschi, 57 ECAB 418, 428 n.37 (2006); Katherine J. Friday, 47 ECAB 591, 594 (1996).
5

the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or incidents is 

sufficient to establish a causal relationship.7

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.8 Rationalized medical 

opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a physician’s reasoned opinion on whether 

there is a causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the compensable 

employment factors. 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.9 The weight of 

medical evidence is determined by its reliability, its probative value, its convincing quality, the 

care of analysis manifested and the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s 

opinion.10

ANALYSIS

Appellant alleged a recurrence of disability on March 10, 2016 due to clearing a jam on 

the sorter machine and lifting heavy buckets. OWCP developed the claim as an occupational 

disease claim based on new employment factors. 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to submit sufficient medical evidence to 

establish that the accepted factors of his federal employment caused or aggravated his lower back 

conditions. 

In a report dated March 23, 2016, Dr. Reimer stated that appellant was injured in a 

workplace encounter, when he was pulling on heavy buckets. He performed a physical 

examination and reviewed appellant’s x-rays of the lumbar spine. Dr. Reimer noted that the 

x-ray demonstrated mild disc dehydration with possibly grade 1 L5-S1 spondylolisthesis and 

mild spondylosis. He stated that appellant was 100 percent disabled from his usual occupation.

In a memorandum to the file dated June 14, 2016, OWCP listed appellant’s prior claims. 

Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx619, on July 2, 2009, it had accepted a sprain of the lumbar region

and placed him on the daily rolls. Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx525, on February 8, 2010, 

OWCP accepted thoracic or lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis, unspecified, and placed appellant

on the daily rolls. The Board notes that he has explained that the repetitive performance of the 

activities he described as occurring on March 10, 2016 caused or aggravated his low back 

conditions. 

 

7 P.K., Docket No. 08-2551 (issued June 2, 2009); Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215, 218 (1997).

8 Elizabeth H. Kramm (Leonard O. Kramm), 57 ECAB 117, 123 (2005).

9

Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132, 134 (2000).

10Jennifer Atkerson, 55 ECAB 317, 319 (2004); Naomi A. Lilly, 10 ECAB 560, 573 (1959).
6

In a medical report dated August 1, 2016, Dr. Reimer examined appellant and diagnosed 

lumbar neuritis, spondylosis, spinal stenosis, and spondylolisthesis. He related that appellant’s 

pushing heavy buckets while working on March 10, 2016 aggravated the underlying spinal 

condition of stenosis and spondylolisthesis contributing to neurotic symptoms in the lower 

extremity and a flare in his overall pain.

In a report dated October 5, 2016, Dr. Reimer examined appellant and diagnosed with 

spinal stenosis and neuritic lower extremity pain, stable. He noted, “As it has been previously 

indicated on chart notes, I will iterate that the injury, which took place on March 10, 2016 when 

[appellant] was pushing and manipulating heavy buckets did aggravate his spinal stenosis and 

spondylolisthesis contributing to his neuritis symptoms in his lower extremities.”

The Board finds that, while Dr. Reimer noted the diagnoses as aggravation of spinal 

stenosis and spondylolisthesis, these were not the accepted conditions in appellant’s prior claims. 

Dr. Reimer’s reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim because they lack a detailed 

biomechanical explanation of how the accepted factors of appellant’s employment caused or 

aggravated appellant’s currently diagnosed conditions.

11

 The Board has found that rationalized 

medical opinion evidence must relate specific employment factors identified by the claimant to 

the claimant’s condition, with medical rationale explaining how the employment factors 

physiologically caused the diagnosed condition.12 The Board has also found that a mere 

conclusion without the necessary rationale is insufficient to meet a claimant’s burden of proof.13 

Accordingly, Dr. Reimer’s reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

In support of his claim, appellant also submitted a diagnostic report dated April 15, 2016

from Dr. Greene. Reports of diagnostic tests, are of limited probative value as they fail to 

provide an opinion on the causal relationship between his accepted factors of employment and 

his diagnosed conditions. For this reason, this evidence is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden 

of proof.14

OWCP advised appellant that it was his responsibility to provide a comprehensive 

medical report which provided a rationalized medical opinion causally relating the diagnosed 

conditions to the accepted factors of employment. Appellant failed to do so. He has therefore 

not met his burden of proof to establish an occupational disease causally related to factors of 

employment. 

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. 

 

11 See V.G., Docket No. 17-0067 (issued April 5, 2017). 

12 See T.C., Docket No. 16-1052 (issued November 8, 2016).

13 See T.M., Docket No. 08-0975 (issued February 6, 2009); Roma A. Mortenson-Kindschi, 57 ECAB 418 (2006); 

William C. Thomas, 45 ECAB 591 (1994) (a medical report is of limited probative value on the issue of causal 

relationship if it contains a conclusion regarding causal relationship which is unsupported by medical rationale).

14 A.B., Docket No. 17-0301 (issued May 19, 2017). 
7

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not established an aggravation of his lower back 

conditions causally related to factors of his federal employment.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 13, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: November 13, 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