United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, 

COMMANDER NAVY INSTALLATIONS 

COMMAND, San Diego, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0044

Issued: April 24, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 8, 2018 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 18, 2018 

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish cervical, lumbar, 

right shoulder, and left knee conditions causally related to the accepted factors of her federal 

employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 7, 2017 appellant, then a 53-year-old engineer, filed an occupational disease claim 

(Form CA-2) alleging that she injured her back due to daily traversing of shipyard makeshift 

structures. She indicated that she first became aware of her claimed condition on December 19, 

2015, and related it to factors of her federal employment on May 11, 2017. On the reverse side of 

the claim form, the employing establishment noted that appellant first received medical care and 

reported the condition to her supervisor on January 14, 2016, and that she was last exposed to the 

factors alleged to have caused her condition on April 4, 2016. 

In a development letter dated June 22, 2017, OWCP advised appellant of the factual and 

medical deficiencies of her claim. It provided a questionnaire for her completion to establish the 

employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to her medical condition and requested 

a medical report from her attending physician explaining how and why her federal work activities 

caused, contributed to, or aggravated her medical condition. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to

submit the necessary evidence.

In a report dated July 14, 2017, Dr. John Doeyoung Kim, Board-certified in internal 

medicine, indicated that he examined appellant for aggravation of preexisting cervical spondylosis 

without myelopathy and aggravation of preexisting displaced cervical intervert disc that occurred 

on December 19, 2015,

3

as well as a recurrence of right shoulder rotator cuff tear that occurred on

February 7, 2002.4 He related that she complained of new lumbosacral and left knee injuries. 

Dr. Kim diagnosed aggravation of preexisting cervical spondylosis and aggravation of preexisting 

displaced cervical discs. He also indicated that appellant had a recurrence of a right rotator cuff 

tear and sustained injuries to her left knee. Dr. Kim noted that she had surgery on her cervical 

spine on October 19, 2006, and surgery on her right shoulder on May 8, 2013. He further 

diagnosed left knee patellar maltracking and left knee effusion and derangement. Dr. Kim noted 

that appellant could return to work full time with restrictions.

By decision dated September 1, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she 

had not submitted evidence sufficient to establish that her medical conditions were causally related 

to the accepted factors of her federal employment. 

On October 6, 2017 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review. 

 

3 OWCP File No. xxxxxx742, which is an occupational disease claim accepted for cervical spondylosis and 

displacement of the cervical disc.

4 OWCP File No. xxxxxx740, which is a February 7, 2002 traumatic injury accepted for right shoulder sprain and 

partial tear of the right rotator cuff.
3

In a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report dated February 2, 2017, Dr. Charles 

Hecht-Leavitt, Board-certified in diagnostic radiology, noted impressions of moderate central disc 

protrusion deforming the spinal cord at C3-4, postoperative changes at C4-5 and C5-6, and mild 

annular bulging and bilateral ligamentum flavum hypertrophy mildly narrowing the neural canal 

at C6-7. 

In an MRI scan report dated February 17, 2017, Dr. Carl Bundschuh, Board-certified in 

diagnostic radiology, noted impressions of epidural lumbar lipomatosis, severe central stenosis at 

L6-S1 and L4-5, and moderate central stenosis at L3-4. 

In a report dated September 21, 2017, Dr. Eric J. Goldberg, a Board-certified neurologist, 

reviewed MRI scans of appellant’s lumbar and cervical spine and an electromyography study, and 

diagnosed radiculopathy. 

A telephonic hearing was held before an OWCP hearing representative on March 13, 2018. 

In a report dated March 15, 2018, Dr. Goldberg diagnosed cervical and lumbosacral 

radiculopathy, right shoulder labrum tears, and left knee joint disorder. He noted that these 

conditions were related to appellant’s employment-related physical activity of traversing up and 

down stairs, shipboard ladders, and scaffolding while carrying weighted backpacks filled with 

binders.

By decision dated May 24, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

September 1, 2017 decision, finding that appellant had not submitted rationalized medical 

evidence explaining how her medical conditions were causally related to the physical nature of her 

duties of federal employment. 

On July 10, 2018 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of OWCP’s 

May 24, 2018 decision. Counsel resubmitted Dr. Goldberg’s March 15, 2018 report along with 

the request. 

By decision dated July 18, 2018, OWCP denied modification of the May 24, 2018 decision,

finding that appellant failed to submit a physician’s rationalized opinion that discussed a complete 

and accurate medical and factual history along with an explanation of how the factors of her federal 

employment caused or contributed to her diagnosed medical conditions supported with medical 

reasoning. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 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,6that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, 

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

 

5 Supra note 2.

6 S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).
4

to the employment injury.7 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim, 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.8

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit: (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 diagnosed condition is causally 

related to the identified employment factors.9

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical 

opinion evidence.10 Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a 

physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is causal relationship between the 

claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated 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.11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish cervical, lumbar, 

right shoulder, and left knee conditions causally related to the accepted factors of her federal 

employment.

Appellant submitted medical reports dated September 21, 2017 and March 15, 2018 from

Dr. Goldberg, which diagnosed cervical and lumbosacral radiculopathy, right shoulder labrum 

tears, and left knee joint disorder. Dr. Goldberg noted that these conditions were related to 

appellant’s employment-related physical activity of traversing up and down stairs, shipboard 

ladders, and scaffolding while carrying weighted backpacks filled with binders. However, he 

failed to offer a rationalized medical opinion regarding the cause of appellant’s conditions. A 

conclusory statement regarding causal relationship is of limited probative value.12 The Board has 

held that a report is of limited probative value regarding causal relationship if it does not contain 

 

7

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

8 K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 

2014); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

9 S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

10 M.B., Docket No. 17-1999 (issued November 13, 2018).

11 M.L., Docket No. 18-1605 (issued February 26, 2019).

12 See B.B., Docket No. 18-1036 (issued December 31, 2018).
5

medical rationale explaining how a given medical condition is causally related to an employment 

incident.13

In his July 14, 2017 report, Dr. Kim diagnosed aggravation of preexisting cervical 

spondylosis and aggravation of preexisting displaced cervical discs. He also indicated that 

appellant had a recurrence of right rotator cuff tear and sustained injuries to her left knee. Dr. Kim 

did not explain how her injuries first realized on December 19, 2015 had caused her diagnosed 

conditions or contributed to or aggravated her preexisting conditions. The need for medical 

rationale is particularly important given that Dr. Kim indicated that appellant had a preexisting 

condition.14 In cases where a claimant has a preexisting condition, the physician must provide a 

rationalized medical opinion that differentiates between the effects of the work-related injury and 

the preexisting condition.15 Dr. Kim did not sufficiently explain how appellant sustained cervical, 

lumbar, right shoulder, and left knee conditions from the repetitive factors of her federal 

employment, and how these activities altered or aggravated her preexisting conditions.16 

Therefore, his report is of limited probative value.

Appellant also submitted two diagnostic test reports in support of her claim. The Board 

has held that diagnostic studies lack probative value as they do not address whether the 

employment incident caused any of the diagnosed conditions.17 Therefore, such diagnostic reports 

are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to provide sufficient medical 

evidence to establish that her diagnosed conditions were causally related to the accepted factors of 

her federal employment. Thus, appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish her claim.

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument as part of 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 cervical, lumbar, 

right shoulder, and left knee conditions causally related to the accepted factors of her federal 

employment.

 

13 J.L., Docket No. 17-1460 (issued December 21, 2018); see Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017) 

(finding that a report is of limited probative value regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale 

describing the relation between work factors and a diagnosed condition/disability).

14 K.R., Docket No. 18-1388 (issued January 9, 2019); see C.D., Docket No. 17-2011 (issued November 6, 2018).

15 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013).

16 See K.C., Docket No. 17-1693 (issued October 29, 2018).

17 See J.S., Docket No. 17-1039 (issued October 6, 2017).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 18, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 24, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board