United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.A., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISONS, Atlanta, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1165

Issued: December 16, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 30, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 22, 2019 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 his burden of proof to expand the acceptance of his 

claim to include lumbar radiculopathy causally related to his accepted May 20, 2011 employment 

injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 20, 2011 appellant, then a 42-year-old warehouse worker, filed a traumatic injury

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on that day, he sustained a back injury when he attempted to 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

raise a roll-up door on a 53-foot trailer for inspection while in the performance of duty. He noted 

that he heard a snap and felt a sharp pain in the lower right side of his back when he attempted to 

raise the door.

On July 1, 2011 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for sprain of the back, right lumbar 

region.2

OWCP received a letter dated January 14, 2019 from Dr. Jason S. Key, an attending Boardcertified family practitioner, indicating that he evaluated appellant for low back pain and lumbar 

radiculopathy. Dr. Key related a history and noted that appellant had reported having problems 

since his May 20, 2011 employment-related injury. He advised that he reviewed medical records 

which revealed that appellant had bulging discs at L4-5 and L5-S1 at that time for which he 

received an epidural injection with some relief. Dr. Key related that a magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) scan performed in 2011 revealed bulging discs at L4-5 and L5-S1 with possible effects on 

the corresponding nerve roots. He noted that he denied having any other injury. Dr. Key advised 

that appellant’s complaints were consistent with physical examination and imaging findings. He

opined that his current symptoms were related to, and could be attributed to, his prior injury given 

similar findings on imaging and his history and physical examination. 

On February 6, 2019 appellant requested that OWCP expand acceptance of his claim to 

include the additional condition of lumbar radiculopathy. He indicated that his request for claim 

expansion was based on Dr. Key’s finding that his condition was related to his accepted 2011

employment-related injury. 

In a development letter dated February 7, 2019, OWCP advised appellant of the type of 

evidence required to support that the acceptance of his claim should be expanded, including a 

rationalized medical report explaining how the diagnosed condition was caused, aggravated, or 

precipitated by his accepted employment injury. It afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence. 

Dr. Key, in two separate letters dated February 13, 2019, again noted his evaluation of

appellant for low back pain and lumbar radiculopathy, and reiterated the history of his accepted 

May 20, 2011 employment injury and medical treatment. He noted that a July 31, 2013 lumbar 

spine MRI scan revealed bulging discs at L4-5 and L5-S1 causing mild neural foraminal stenosis

(narrowing) and a 2018 lumbar spine MRI scan showed bulging discs at L4-5 and L5-S1 with 

possible effects on the corresponding nerve roots. Dr. Key advised that his interpretation of the 

most recent MRI scan demonstrated an apparent interval worsening of the previous findings. He 

indicated that appellant was ultimately diagnosed as having a low back sprain, but that 

documentation listed an additional diagnosis of lumbar radiculopathy. Dr. Key further indicated 

that in addition to his complaints of back pain, appellant reported complaints of pain radiating to 

his lower extremities and occasional numbness and tingling in his lower extremities. He reiterated 

that his complaints were consistent with physical examination and imaging findings. Dr. Key

 

2 On July 7, 2014 appellant requested a schedule award (Form CA-7). OWCP, by decision dated November 17, 

2014, denied his schedule award claim. 
3

diagnosed low back pain and lumbar radiculopathy and opined that the diagnosed conditions 

resulted from appellant’s accepted May 20, 2011 work-related injury.

On April 18, 2019 OWCP routed Dr. Key’s reports, a statement of accepted facts (SOAF), 

and the case file, to Dr. Kenechukwu Ugokwe, a Board-certified neurosurgeon serving as an 

OWCP district medical adviser (DMA), for review and to determine whether appellant had 

developed lumbar radiculopathy as a consequence of his accepted May 20, 2011 employment 

injury.

In a report dated April 22, 2019, Dr. Ugokwe indicated that he had reviewed the SOAF and

medical record, including Dr. Key’s reports. He disagreed with Dr. Key’s opinion that appellant 

had developed lumbar radiculopathy as a consequence of his accepted work-related injury and that 

his claim should be expanded to include this condition. Dr. Ugokwe explained that Dr. Key’s 

opinion was inconsistent with the medical findings in appellant’s case. First, he noted that a 

September 16, 2014 electromyogram (EMG) had not shown evidence of radiculopathy. Secondly,

Dr. Ugokwe further noted that a lumbar MRI scan did not show stenosis that was significant 

enough to cause radiculopathy.

By decision also dated April 22, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request to expand the 

acceptance of his claim to include lumbar radiculopathy causally related to the May 20, 2011

employment injury. It found that Dr. Ugokwe’s opinion constituted the weight of the evidence 

and established that he had not sustained an additional employment-related lumbar condition.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Where an employee claims that a condition not accepted or approved by OWCP was due

to an employment injury, he or she bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition is

causally related to the employment injury.3

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion

evidence to resolve the issue.

4

 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and an accepted injury must be based on a complete factual and 

medical background.5 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be expressed in terms of a 

reasonable degree of medical certainty and must be supported by medical rationale which, explains

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

injury.

6

 

3 M.B., Docket No. 19-0485 (issued August 22, 2019); R.J., Docket No. 17-1365 (issued May 8, 2019); Jaja K.

Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004).

4 E.M., Docket No. 18-1599 (issued March 7, 2019); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

5 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

6

Id.
4

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to expand the acceptance of 

his claim to include lumbar radiculopathy causally related to his accepted May 20, 2011 

employment injury.

In support of his request for claim expansion, appellant submitted reports dated January 14 

and February 13, 2019 from his physician, Dr. Key. In these reports, Dr. Key diagnosed low back 

pain and lumbar radiculopathy. He opined that the diagnosed conditions were causally related to 

the accepted May 20, 2011 employment injury based on similar findings on diagnostic imaging 

and appellant’s history and physical examination. The Board finds that, while he concluded that 

the May 20, 2011 employment injury caused the diagnosed lumbar conditions, Dr. Key provided 

no medical rationale in support of his opinion. The Board has held that a mere conclusion without 

the necessary rationale as to whether a period of disability is due to an accepted employment 

condition is insufficient to meet a claimant’s burden of proof.7 The Board therefore finds that his

reports are insufficient for appellant to meet his burden of proof to establish that the accepted 

conditions in his claim should be expanded.

OWCP referred appellant to a DMA, Dr. Ugokwe, for an opinion regarding whether the 

acceptance of appellant’s claim should be expanded to include lumbar radiculopathy. In his

April 22, 2019 report, Dr. Ugokwe found no additional employment-related lumbar condition. He 

disagreed with Dr. Key’s opinion that appellant sustained lumbar radiculopathy as a consequence 

of the May 20, 2011 employment injury. Dr. Ugokwe explained that Dr. Key’s opinion was 

inconsistent with the medical findings in the record as the September 16, 2014 EMG had not shown

evidence of radiculopathy and a lumbar MRI scan had not shown stenosis that was significant 

enough to cause radiculopathy. Thus, his opinion was not supportive of the claimed expansion. 

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted sufficient rationalized medical evidence 

to establish causal relationship between the accepted May 20, 2011 employment injury and the 

claimed additional condition of lumbar radiculopathy. As such, appellant has not met his burden 

of proof.8

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 expand the acceptance of 

his claim to include lumbar radiculopathy causally related to his accepted May 20, 2011 

employment injury.

 

7 A.T., Docket No. 19-0410 (issued August 13, 2019); E.L., Docket No. 17-1632 (issued January 3, 2018). 

8

Id.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 22, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 16, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board