United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.W., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bellmawr, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0602 

Issued: June 2, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 9, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

September 30, 2015 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 the case. 

ISSUE 

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

a diagnosed medical condition, herniated disc, causally related to the March 10, 2013 

employment incident. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 20, 2013 appellant, then a 46-year-old clerk, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form 

CA-1), alleging that she injured her back on March 10, 2013 while lifting heavy trays of mail 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

from a high speed tray sorter (HSTS) to a workstation, as well as by pushing an all-purpose 

container (APC). She asserted that this caused a herniated disc. Appellant stopped work on 

March 10, 2013. 

The employing establishment submitted statements dated September 4 and 9, 2013 from 

Blane Amerman, appellant’s supervisor. Dr. Amerman noted that on April 16, 2013 appellant 

had informed him that she had not been injured at work, but rather that she had fallen down stairs 

at home and had gone to an emergency room. 

In a statement dated May 20, 2013, appellant related that on March 10, 2013 she was 

processing mail which included retrieving mail from an HSTS, lifting and placing the trays into 

an APC, and pushing the container to her workstation for further processing. This process was 

performed repeatedly. The next day appellant experienced pain and spasms in her back and did 

not return to work until March 13, 2013. She sought emergency room treatment on March 14, 

2013 and realized her sciatic spasms in her low back and buttocks were related to her work 

duties. 

Appellant submitted March 14, 2013 emergency room discharge instructions from 

Dr. Daniel J. Weeks, Board-certified in emergency medicine, which reflected a diagnosis of back 

sprain and strain. In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated March 14, 2013, prepared by a 

physician assistant, appellant was diagnosed with lumbar strain and sciatica and released to 

regular duty on March 23, 2013. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. William Knowles, a Board-certified internist, on 

March 25, 2013. Dr. Knowles noted that appellant was excused from work from March 24 to 

April 19, 2013. Dr. Jimmie Young, a Board-certified internist and an associate of Dr. Knowles, 

saw appellant on April 18 and May 20, 2013. He opined that her condition was work related “as 

noted in the work requirements of the employee.” Dr. Young advised that a lumbar spine 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan showed a herniated disc and several bulging discs. He 

noted that appellant was totally disabled from April 20 to May 20, 2013. In a May 24, 2013 

report, Dr. Young noted treating appellant on March 25, 2013 for low back pain and spasms. He 

noted that she was seen in the emergency room on March 14, 2013 and x-rays revealed mild 

degenerative joint disease. Dr. Young advised that a lumbar spine MRI scan showed a herniated 

disc and a bulging disc. He opined that, after discussing appellant’s work duties, he concluded 

her conditions were work related. Dr. Young advised that her mobility was severely restricted. 

On August 30, 2013 he noted that appellant was injured on the job and was disabled from 

September 3 to October 3, 2013. 

By letter dated October 2, 2013, OWCP advised appellant of the type of evidence needed 

to establish her claim, particularly requesting that she submit a physician’s reasoned opinion 

addressing the relationship of her claimed condition and specific employment factors. 

Appellant submitted an October 7, 2013 report from Dr. Young who advised that 

appellant was disabled from October 4 to November 18, 2013. 

In a November 1, 2013 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

evidence of record did not support that the injury or events occurred as alleged. 
3

On November 15, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration. She submitted emergency 

room records dated March 14, 2013, a March 25, 2013 report from Dr. Knowles, a Form CA-1, 

and reports from Dr. Young dated April 18 to October 7, 2013, all previously of record. 

Appellant submitted a duty status report dated March 14, 2013 from a physician assistant who 

diagnosed lumbar strain/sciatic and noted appellant was totally disabled. 

In reports dated May 30, July 1 and 23, 2013, Dr. Young opined that appellant was 

disabled from May 31 to September 2, 2013 for medical reasons. In an attending physician’s 

report dated October 31, 2013, he noted that appellant had reported that her injury occurred 

while at work lifting heavy trays, and bending, lifting, and pushing mail containers. Dr. Young 

diagnosed herniated disc at L2-3, bulging disc disease, facet arthritis and lumbar disc disease 

with radiculopathy. He noted with a checkmark in a box marked “yes” that appellant’s condition 

was caused or aggravated by a work activity and noted that lifting and pushing heavy objects 

could cause this condition. Dr. Young again found appellant was totally disabled. 

In a work capacity evaluation dated October 31, 2013, Dr. Young opined that appellant 

was not capable of performing her usual job noting that her symptoms, including low back pain, 

decreased mobility and herniated and bulging discs, limited her ability to work. He found 

appellant unable to work. 

An April 10, 2013 MRI scan of the lumbar spine revealed a small lateral herniation of 

L2-3 intervertebral disc, facet arthritis at L4-5 and L5-S1. 

In an October 10, 2013 response to OWCP’s questions regarding her claim, appellant 

stated that she reported her back injury to her superiors on March 13, 2013. She contended that 

she had never stated that she had fallen down stairs at home or anywhere else. Appellant 

reiterated that the cause of her back condition was pushing heavy carts and carrying trays from 

station to station. There were no witnesses to the injury. 

In a decision dated February 19, 2014, OWCP modified the November 1, 2013 decision, 

finding that the evidence of record established the claimed work incidents of March 10, 2013. 

However, it further found that the medical evidence submitted was insufficient to establish 

causal relationship between the employment incidents of March 10, 2013 and a diagnosed 

medical condition. 

On July 24, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration. She submitted an October 31, 

2013 report from Dr. Young, previously of record. Also submitted was a June 4, 2014 report 

from Dr. Young who opined that appellant was injured on March 10, 2013 as a result of her 

employment as a clerk. He noted that the injury occurred as a result of lifting heavy trays of mail 

daily, coupled with constant bending, lifting and pushing heavy items. Dr. Young first treated 

appellant on March 25, 2013 for back pain caused by work-related activities. He found her 

unable to return to work on March 23, 2013 due to persistent low back pain. An MRI scan 

revealed a herniated disc at L2-3, bulging disc disease, facet arthritis and lumbar disc disease 

with radiculopathy. Dr. Young noted objective findings of limited range of motion, tenderness 

in the lumbar region with palpation, pain with straight-leg raising, and muscle spasms. He found 

that repetitive lifting, pushing and bending could lead to diagnoses of herniated disc disease, 

radiculopathy and weakness in the lumbar area. 
4

In a decision dated October 23, 2014, OWCP denied modification of the February 19, 

2014 decision. 

On June 30, 2015 appellant again requested reconsideration. She submitted evidence 

previously of record. Also provided was a December 15, 2014 report from Dr. Steven J. 

Valentino, a Board-certified orthopedist, who saw appellant for localized pain at L3 thru S1, 

radiation into the bilateral posterior thighs, occasional numbness. Appellant reported that the 

symptoms were present since a work injury on March 10, 2013 which occurred after bending, 

lifting and pushing. A review of an MRI scan from April 10, 2013 revealed left lateral 

herniation at L2-3 with multilevel facet arthritis. Dr. Valentino noted range of motion 

significantly limited in all planes. Palpation of the spine revealed significant spasm and facet 

synovitis. Appellant had a positive straight leg raising test, intact deep tendon reflexes, normal 

motor and sensory examinations, and normal gait and station. Dr. Valentino diagnosed lumbago, 

lumbar sprain and strain, facet arthropathy, sciatica and displacement of lumbar intervertebral 

disc without myelopathy. He opined that her diagnoses were related to her work injury, by direct 

cause or aggravation, as was her disability and need for ongoing treatment. 

In a decision dated September 30, 2015, OWCP denied modification of the decision 

dated October 23, 2014. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

 An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing 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 

of FECA, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that any 

disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the 

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

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or occupational disease.2

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. 

There are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that he actually experienced the employment incident at 

the time and place and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit medical 

evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.3

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is generally required to establish causal 

relationship. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical 

 2 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 357 (2001). 

3

 T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). 
5

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

specific employment factors identified by the claimant.4

ANALYSIS 

It is not disputed that on March 10, 2013 appellant was lifting trays of mail from an 

HSTS and pushing an APC. However, she has not submitted sufficient medical evidence to 

establish that these work activities caused or aggravated her diagnosed low back conditions. 

Appellant submitted a December 15, 2014 report from Dr. Valentino who noted her 

complaints of localized pain at L3 thru S1 with radiation into the bilateral posterior thighs since a 

March 10, 2013 work injury that occurred after bending, lifting and pushing. Dr. Valentino 

diagnosed lumbago, lumbar sprain and strain, facet arthropathy, sciatica and displacement of 

lumbar intervertebral disc without myelopathy. He opined that these diagnoses were caused or 

aggravated by work duties as was her need for ongoing treatment. The Board finds that, 

although Dr. Valentino noted the diagnoses were related to appellant’s work, he did not provide 

medical rationale explaining the basis of his conclusory opinion regarding the causal relationship 

between appellant’s herniated disc and bulging discs and the March 10, 2013 employment 

incident.5

 Therefore, this report is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

In a June 4, 2014 report, Dr. Young noted appellant was injured on March 10, 2013 as a 

result of her employment. He noted the injury occurred as a result of lifting heavy trays of mail 

daily coupled with constant bending, lifting and pushing heavy items. Dr. Young first treated 

appellant on March 25, for back pain caused by work-related activities. He advised that 

appellant was unable to work on March 23, 2013 due to persistent low back pain. Dr. Young 

noted an MRI scan showed a herniated disc at L2-L3, bulging disc disease, facet arthritis, and 

lumbar disc disease with radiculopathy. He stated that repetitive activity of lifting, pushing and 

bending could lead to diagnoses of herniated disc disease with radiculopathy. Similarly, 

Dr. Young provided other reports from April 18 to October 31, 2013, in which he advised that 

appellant had a herniated disc and opined that appellant’s condition was work related. The 

Board finds that, although Dr. Young supported causal relationship, he did not provide medical 

rationale explaining the basis of his conclusory opinion regarding the causal relationship between 

appellant’s herniated disc and the factors of employment.6

 Dr. Young did not explain the 

process by which lifting trays of mail, bending, lifting and pushing heavy items would cause the 

diagnosed condition or why such condition would not be due to any nonwork factors such as 

age-related degenerative changes. Thus, these reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden 

of proof. 

 4 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

5 See T.M., Docket No. 08-975 (issued February 6, 2009) (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). 

6 Id.
6

Dr. Young provided other reports that did not specifically address whether appellant’s 

employment activities caused or aggravated a diagnosed medical condition. These reports are of 

limited probative value.7 

Appellant submitted emergency room discharge instructions dated March 14, 2013 from 

Dr. Weeks who diagnosed back sprain and strain. Similarly, in a report dated March 25, 2013, 

Dr. Knowles noted that appellant was excused from work from March 24 to April 19, 2013. 

These reports are insufficient to establish the claim as these physicians did not provide a history 

of injury8 or specifically address whether appellant’s employment activities had caused or 

aggravated a diagnosed medical condition.9

 

The remainder of the medical evidence, which includes diagnostic test reports, is of 

limited probative value as it does not provide an opinion on the causal relationship between the 

March 10, 2013 work incident and appellant’s diagnosed medical conditions.10 

Appellant submitted a duty status report from a physician assistant. However, this 

evidence is of no probative medical value as the Board has held that physician assistants are not 

competent to render medical opinions under FECA.11 

Consequently, appellant has not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish that 

that her work incident of March 10, 2013 caused or aggravated a diagnosed medical condition. 

On appeal appellant’s counsel asserts that OWCP improperly denied the claim and that 

she submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish that on March 10, 2013 she injured her 

lumbar spine while repeatedly lifting heavy trays of mail from an HSTS to a workstation and 

pushing an APC. As noted above, the medical evidence of record does not establish that 

appellant’s diagnosed conditions are causally related to her employment. Appellant has not 

submitted a physician’s report, based on an accurate history, which explains how work activities 

on March 10, 2013 caused or aggravated a lumbar condition. 

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. 

 7 A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006) (medical evidence which does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an 

employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship). 

8 Frank Luis Rembisz, 52 ECAB 147 (2000) (medical opinions based on an incomplete history or which are 

speculative or equivocal in character have little probative value). 

9

 See supra note 7. 

10 See id. 

11 See S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009); 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). 
7

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish that she 

sustained a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the March 10, 2013 employment 

incident. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 30, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 2, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board