United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Affton, MO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0242

Issued: June 11, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 November 13, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 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 has met his burden of proof to establish an occupational 

disease in the performance of duty, as alleged. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 28, 2017 appellant, then a 45-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that his federal employment duties caused bulging and degenerated 

discs, as well as subluxation of the pelvis. He indicated that he first became aware of the conditions 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

on December 1, 2011 and their relationship to factors of his federal employment later on 

May 29, 2015. In an accompanying statement, appellant related that he delayed filing his claim 

because he did not become a career employee until November 2, 2013, and his health insurance 

did not become effective until January 2, 2014. He did not indicate whether he had stopped work.2 

On August 24, 2017 P.H., an employing establishment human resources specialist,

controverted the claim. She noted that appellant’s two previous claims were denied, and that since 

March 2014 appellant had only cased his route and was not carrying any mail. 

Medical evidence submitted included a September 5, 2014 duty status report (Form CA-17) 

in which Dr. Kyle A. Roesler, a chiropractor, noted appellant’s report that he slipped in snow and 

fell to his knees. He described clinical findings of leg pain consistent with lumbosacral radiculitis 

and advised that appellant could return to restricted duty with standing, walking, and climbing 

limited to one-hour daily. On February 6, 2015 Dr. Roesler noted treating appellant since March 5, 

2014 for low back and leg pain and provided restrictions to appellant’s physical activity. On 

May 29, 2015 he diagnosed lumbar segmental dysfunction, lumbosacral radiculitis, sacral 

subluxation, subluxation pelvis, cervical segmental dysfunction, thoracic segmental dysfunction, 

and paravertebral myositis. Dr. Roesler advised that the stress and strain associated with 

appellant’s letter carrier duties caused injury to and exacerbations of his low back conditions.

In correspondence dated March 7, 2017, Peggy Reed, a registered nurse and occupational 

health administrator, noted that appellant had a fitness-for-duty examination on January 26, 2017 

including a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the lumbar spine. She related that there 

was no objective evidence to show that appellant could not work without limitation and his only 

limiting factors were subjective complaints of pain.3

A report dated April 4, 2017 with an illegible signature indicated that appellant should be 

limited to light duty due to chronic pain. In May 4 and August 8, 2017 reports, Dr. Dawn Davis, 

a Board-certified family physician, related appellant’s work restrictions.

By development letter dated September 7, 2017, OWCP informed appellant that the 

evidence received was insufficient to establish his claim. It notified him of the evidence needed 

to substantiate the factual and medical elements of his claim. OWCP noted that he did not identify 

specific work factors on his claim form that he believed caused his condition. It requested that he 

complete an attached questionnaire regarding his employment-related activities and provide a 

medical report from his physician which contained an opinion, supported by a medical explanation, 

 

2 The present claim was assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx573. The record indicates that appellant previously filed 

a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) on June 20, 2014 alleging that on December 1, 2011 he slipped on the snow 

while in the performance of duty and this caused a bulging disc, sciatica, nerve damage, and back spasms. That claim 

was adjudicated by OWCP under File No. xxxxxx483 and was denied on August 4, 2014. Appellant filed an 

occupational disease claim on June 12, 2015, alleging that employment duties caused a bulging disc and pelvic 

subluxation. OWCP adjudicated the 2015 claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx062 and denied the claim on 

August 20, 2015. 

3 A copy of the fitness-for-duty examination is not found in the case record before the Board.
3

as to how specific work activities caused or contributed to, or aggravated his medical condition. 

Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit the requested evidence. 

In a separate September 7, 2017 letter, OWCP requested that the employing establishment 

provide a statement regarding appellant’s work activities, including the physical requirement of 

his job. 

In a statement dated October 4, 2017, W.S., an employing establishment manager, 

controverted the claim. He maintained that none of the medical evidence, which provided work 

restrictions, indicated that appellant’s medical condition was caused by employment duties. W.S. 

noted that since March 2014 appellant had only cased his route for two hours daily and would then 

go home without delivering his route. He also referenced the two prior claims that had been denied 

by OWCP4and attached a position description for a letter carrier. W.S. also attached a duplicate 

of Dr. Roesler’s February 6, 2015 report, and a February 4, 2015 report in which Dr. Roesler 

provided the same diagnoses as in his May 29, 2015 report previously submitted. In the May 29, 

2015 report, Dr. Roesler also indicated that appellant should not perform work which required 

lifting, bending, twisting, or turning over 15 pounds for extended periods or greater than two hours 

at a time. 

By decision dated October 13, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that he failed to establish the factual component of fact or injury. Appellant did not respond 

to the September 7, 2017 letter. OWCP further found that the medical evidence of record did not 

contain a comprehensive report from a treating physician explaining causal relationship between 

appellant’s job duties and the claimed conditions. 

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, and that the claim was timely filed within the 

applicable time limitation period of FECA.6 When an employee claims that he or she sustained an 

injury in the performance of duty,7 he or she must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he 

or she experienced a specific event, incident, or exposure occurring at the time and place, and in 

the manner alleged.8 The employee must also establish that such event, incident, or exposure 

 

4 Supra note 2.

5 Supra note 1.

6 5 U.S.C. § 8101(1); L.M., Docket No. 16-0143 (issued February 19, 2016); B.B., 59 ECAB 234 (2007).

7 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a).

8

J.C., Docket No. 16-0057 (issued February 10, 2016); E.A., 58 ECAB 677 (2007). 
4

caused an injury.9 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.10

OWCP regulations define the term “occupational disease or illness” as a condition 

produced by the work environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.”

11

 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 diagnosed condition is causally 

related to the employment factors identified by the claimant. The medical opinion 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.12

Appellant’s burden of proof includes the submission of a detailed description of the 

employment factors or conditions which he or she believes caused or adversely affected a condition 

for which compensation is claimed.13

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish an occupational 

disease in the performance of his federal employment.

On his claim form appellant alleged that his federal employment duties caused bulging and 

degenerated discs and subluxation of the pelvis. He, however, did not present a clear factual 

statement identifying specific employment factors of conditions alleged to have caused or 

contributed to the presence or occurrence of the claimed medical conditions nor explained how 

any work factor caused or aggravated the claimed conditions. By letter dated September 7, 2017,

OWCP informed appellant that the evidence it had received was insufficient to establish that he 

experienced any employment factors that were alleged to have caused an injury. He was asked to 

complete an attached questionnaire describing his employment-related activities and explain how 

these activities contributed to the claimed conditions. Appellant did not respond to OWCP’s 

September 7, 2017 letter. Since he has not provided a factual statement describing in detail the 

employment duties that caused the claimed conditions, he has not met his burden of proof.14

 

9

Id.

10 R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008).

11 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee).

12 Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238 (2005).

13 T.B., Docket No. 17-0444 (issued May 5, 2017).

14 S.J., Docket No. 17-1798 (issued February 23, 2018); see also P.G., Docket No. 15-1345 (issued 

August 23, 2016). 
5

As appellant did not establish the factual component of his claim, the Board will not address 

the medical evidence with respect to causal relationship.15

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 establish an occupational 

disease in the performance of duty, as alleged.

ORDER

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 11, 2018

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

 

15 Id.