United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

H.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Paris, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0313

Issued: May 18, 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 November 28, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 8, 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.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that her diagnosed 

lumbar condition is causally related to the November 1, 2016 employment incident.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence after OWCP rendered its August 8, 2017 decision.

The Board’s jurisdiction is limited the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Therefore, 

the Board is precluded from considering this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 28, 2017 appellant, then a 50-year-old sales and services/distribution 

associate, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on November 1, 2016, she 

injured her lower back while working “Dispatch - pushing heavy equipment....” She described 

her injury as lower back herniated/bulging disc. The employing establishment controverted the 

claim, noting that she previously filed a claim for a back injury in July 2016. As to the latest 

alleged injury, it questioned the date of injury, as well as what appellant was reportedly doing at 

the time of injury. The employing establishment further noted that it had fired her for cause,

effective December 23, 2016.

A November 11, 2016 certificate to return to work signed by Dr. Victoria E. Pardue, a 

family practitioner, indicated that appellant had been under her care since November 3, 2016 and 

was awaiting the results of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. She advised that appellant 

could return to limited-duty work with a 20-pound lifting restriction, and no pushing/pulling heavy 

objects. Appellant was instructed to follow-up in two weeks.

In a November 15, 2016 return to work slip, Dr. Michael E. Russell, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, asserted that appellant could perform light-duty work with no lifting, pushing, 

or pulling over 20 pounds. The restrictions were to remain in effect until January 1, 2017. 

Dr. Russell referred appellant for lumbar epidural injections. 

By development letter dated March 15, 2017, OWCP requested that appellant submit 

additional factual and medical evidence in support of her claim. It afforded her 30 days to submit 

the requested information.

OWCP subsequently received Dr. Russell’s November 15, 2016 treatment notes. 

Dr. Russell noted that appellant presented with a chief complaint of low back and left leg pain, as 

well as neck pain. He also noted that she was a returning patient who was two years out from a 

C6-7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Dr. Russell reviewed the results of MRI 

scans obtained on that date. The lumbar MRI scan showed “a left-sided protruding disc in the 

lateral recess of L4-5” and the cervical MRI scan revealed mild degeneration of the level above 

appellant’s fusion, but no stenosis. Dr. Russell diagnosed cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, and 

referred her for lumbar epidural injections. In a December 8, 2016 return to work note, he found 

that appellant could work with restrictions through February 1, 2017.3

In a March 13, 2017 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Pardue noted clinical findings 

of “protruding disc L4-5.” The reported diagnosis due to injury was lumbar region radiculopathy 

(ICD-10-CM Code M54.16). The date of injury was November 1, 2016 and the noted history of 

injury was “pushing/pulling equipment, lower back strain.”

By decision dated April 21, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition(s) and the accepted work event. 

 

3 Dr. Russell adjusted appellant’s lifting/pushing/pulling restriction from 20 pounds to 40 pounds.
3

On May 11, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration. 

In a May 1, 2017 note, Dr. Pardue indicated that, while at work on November 1, 2016, 

appellant was required to push a large container. She further indicated that, at approximately 2:00 

a.m., appellant was unable to get out of bed due to severe back pain associated with pushing the 

heavy bin. Dr. Pardue stated that appellant developed a herniated disc related to pushing the heavy 

cart at work.

OWCP also received additional copies of Dr. Russell’s November 15, 2016 treatment notes 

and Dr. Pardue’s March 9, 2017 duty status report (Form CA-17).

In a decision dated August 8, 2017, OWCP denied modification of its April 21, 2017 

decision. It again found that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal 

relationship, noting that appellant’s physicians did not provide sufficient explanation as to whether 

the diagnosed conditions were caused or aggravated by factors of her federal employment.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial 

evidence, including that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that 

any specific condition or disability claimed is causally related to the employment injury.5

To determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Generally, fact of 

injury consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The 

first component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that 

allegedly occurred.6 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.7 An employee may establish that an injury occurred in the performance of duty as alleged, 

but fail to establish that the disability or specific condition for which compensation is being 

claimed is causally related to the injury.8

Causal relationship is a medical question that generally requires rationalized medical 

opinion evidence to resolve the issue.9 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal 

relationship between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factor(s) must be 

based on a complete factual and medical background.10 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must 

 

4 See supra note 1.

5 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996).

6 Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

7

John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8 Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997).

9 Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

10 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
4

be expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by 

medical rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and 

appellant’s specific employment factor(s).11

ANALYSIS

Appellant alleged that she injured her lower back on November 1, 2016 pushing heavy 

equipment. She submitted contemporaneous medical evidence that included a diagnosis of leftsided L4-5 disc protrusion/herniation, as well as lumbar radiculopathy. OWCP found that 

appellant established both components of fact of injury, but it denied her traumatic injury claim 

because the medical evidence was insufficient to establish causal relationship. The Board finds 

that she has not established that her diagnosed lumbar condition is causally related to the accepted 

November 1, 2016 employment incident. 

On November 15, 2016 Dr. Russell evaluated appellant for low back, left leg, and neck 

pain. He noted a prior history of C6-7 ACDF, and reviewed the results of recent cervical and 

lumbar MRI scans. The lumbar study revealed an L4-5 disc protrusion, and the cervical MRI scan 

showed some mild degeneration. After examination Dr. Russell diagnosed cervical and lumbar 

radiculopathy, recommended lumbar epidural injections, and placed her on light-duty work. 

However, he did not specifically address the cause of appellant’s cervical and/or lumbar 

conditions. Medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s 

condition is of diminished probative value on the issue of causal relationship.

12

In a March 13, 2017 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Pardue noted clinical findings 

of “protruding disc L4-5,” and she diagnosed lumbar region radiculopathy (ICD-10 Code M54.16). 

The reported history of injury was “pushing/pulling equipment, lower back strain.” However,

Dr. Pardue did not explain how the November 1, 2016 employment incident either caused or 

contributed to appellant’s lumbar condition. A physician’s opinion must be supported by medical 

rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the 

accepted employment incident.

13

 Consequently, the March 13, 2017 duty status report (Form 

CA-17) is insufficient for purposes of establishing causal relationship.

Dr. Pardue’s May 1, 2017 note is similarly insufficient to satisfy appellant’s burden of 

proof. A physician’s opinion on whether there is a causal relationship between the diagnosed 

condition and the implicated employment factor(s) must be based on a complete factual and 

medical background.14 Dr. Pardue indicated that appellant developed a herniated disc related to 

pushing a “heavy cart,” a “large container,” and/or a “heavy bin” at work on November 1, 2016.

Dr. Pardue did not reference specific examination findings and/or diagnostic studies to support the 

diagnosis. Also, in her May 1, 2017 note, she merely concluded that appellant’s condition was 

employment related without explaining how pushing a large and/or heavy cart/bin/container either 

caused or contributed to the diagnosed condition. None of the information provided by Dr. Pardue, 

 

11 Id.

12 See L.B., Docket No. 17-1600 (issued March 9, 2018); S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009).

13 Supra note 10.

14 Id.
5

beginning with her November 11, 2016 return to work certificate, is of sufficient probative value 

to establish causal relationship. 

The medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish causal relationship. The fact 

that a condition manifests itself during a period of employment is not sufficient to establish causal 

relationship.15 Temporal relationship alone will not suffice.16 Entitlement to FECA benefits may 

not be based on surmise, conjecture, speculation, or on the employee’s own belief of causal 

relationship.17

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 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 that her 

diagnosed lumbar condition was causally related to the November 1, 2016 employment incident.

 

15 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e).

16 See D.I., 59 ECAB 158, 162 (2007).

17 See M.H., Docket No. 16-0228 (issued June 8, 2016).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 8, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 18, 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