United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, NEW YORK 

PERFORMANCE CLUSTER, New York, NY, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0271

Issued: July 24, 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 November 19, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 25, 2018 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 his burden of proof to establish that his lumbar 

conditions were causally related to the accepted December 18, 2017 employment incident.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure

provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the 

time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal.” 

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on 

appeal. Id.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 18, 2017 appellant, then a 63-year-old parcel post carrier and driver, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date he bent his knees while lifting a 

parcel and sustained a back spasm while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on

December 18, 2017.

In a December 18, 2017 report, Dr. Steven H. Lin, a Board-certified neurologist, noted that 

appellant was injured that day, when he “lifted a typical box not excruciatingly heavy or awkward 

in a typical manner that he would anytime, using good ergonomic form, and felt pulling in the left 

lower left back.” Dr. Lin determined that appellant had a muscle pull. He placed appellant off 

work and noted that appellant would follow-up on January 8, 2018.

A December 20, 2017 lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, read by Dr. Adam 

Lanshkowsky, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, demonstrated multiple lumbar herniated 

discs.

In a December 21, 2017 report, Dr. Melinda Keller, a chiropractor, noted that appellant 

was seen for severe low back pain resulting from an injury while lifting at work on 

December 18, 2017. She indicated that an examination and x-rays revealed a “lumbar disc 

diagnosis.” Dr. Keller advised that appellant was referred for a lumbar MRI scan which revealed 

multiple lumbar herniated discs. She indicated that appellant should remain sedentary and stay 

out of work for the next three weeks.

In a January 10, 2018 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish his claim. In particular, it noted that there was no diagnosis 

of any condition resulting from an injury at work. OWCP advised him of the type of factual and 

medical evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for his completion. It afforded appellant 

30 days to provide the necessary information.

Thereafter, OWCP received a December 18, 2017 note from Dr. Nakul Mahajen, Boardcertified in pain medicine.

3

A number of reports, including duty status reports (Form CA-17) and attending physician 

reports (Form CA-20) were received from Dr. Laurie Lamarre, a chiropractor, dated December 21, 

26, and 29, 2017, and January 2, 3, 9, 11, 16, 22, 24, and 31, 2018. Dr. Lamarre diagnosed lumbar 

degenerative disc disease, lumbar degenerative spondylosis, lumbar disc displacement, lumbar 

disc herniation, lumbar stenosis, and lumbar radiculopathy. She opined that appellant’s diagnoses

were the result of post-traumatic injury. 

OWCP also received January 17, 2018 nerve conduction studies performed and interpreted 

by Kevin McPartland, a chiropractor.

By decision dated February 14, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim. It 

accepted that the December 18, 2017 employment incident occurred as alleged, but denied the 

 

3 The note indicated 2017; however, this is a typographical error.
3

claim because the evidence of record did not establish a valid medical diagnosis in connection with 

the accepted employment incident. OWCP noted that appellant had a preexisting back condition 

and his physician had not provided a detailed and well-rationalized medical report based on a 

complete and accurate history, explaining the mechanism of his claimed back injury, and how the 

diagnosed condition resulted from the claimed work incident. It also noted that the medical 

evidence from chiropractors did not diagnose a subluxation of the spine, and, therefore, appellant 

had not met the requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

In a January 18, 2018 statement, appellant described the incident at work. He indicated 

that he was lifting a 35-pound parcel and had not experienced any similar disability or symptoms 

before the injury on December 18, 2017.

On March 27, 2018 OWCP received appellant’s March 17, 2018 request for 

reconsideration.

OWCP received additional chiropractic notes from Dr. Lamarre, dated February 7, 15, and 

19, March 12, 14, and 28, April 19, and May 9 and 30, 2018. Dr. Lamarre noted that appellant 

was lifting a package on December 18, 2017, when he experienced pain in his lower back. She

provided examination findings, including a diagnosis of spinal subluxation at L3-4, L4-5, and L5-

S1, revealed in radiographic examination x-rays of the lumbar spine taken on March 12, 2018. 

Dr. Lamarre further diagnosed lumbar segmental dysfunction, lumbar radiculopathy, lumbosacral 

radiculopathy, lumbar intervertebral disc displacement (IVD) disorder with myelopathy, lumbar 

disc displacement and/or lumbar IVD, spondylosis with myelopathy and/or lumbar spondylosis 

with radiculopathy, lumbar stenosis, and myalgia. She opined that lifting a parcel on December 18, 

2017 caused the diagnosed conditions.

On March 27 and April 2, 2018 OWCP also received physical evidence including 

environmental studies and photographs. 

By decision dated June 25, 2018, OWCP affirmed the February 14, 2018 decision with 

modification. It found that the medical evidence of record was sufficient to establish diagnoses of

spinal subluxation. However, OWCP denied appellant’s claim due to insufficient medical 

evidence to establish causal relationship between his diagnosed conditions and the accepted 

December 18, 2017 employment incident.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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,

4

that 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 

 

4 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.5 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.6

To determine if an employee has 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.7 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.8

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is 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 rationale explaining the 

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment incident.9

ANALYSIS

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

conditions were causally related to the accepted December 18, 2017 employment incident.

In a December 18, 2017 report, Dr. Lin determined that appellant had sustained a pulled 

muscle. He did not opine regarding the cause of appellant’s diagnosed condition. The Board has 

held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s 

condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.10 This report, therefore, is 

insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

A December 18, 2017 note from Dr. Mahajen indicated that appellant was seen on that day. 

Since this report did not provide a factual and medical background, did not relate a diagnosis, and 

did not provide medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed 

condition and the employment incident, it is of no probative medical value.11

Appellant also submitted reports from chiropractors. Under FECA the term physician 

includes chiropractors only to the extent that their reimbursable services are limited to treatment 

 

5

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

ECAB 312 (1988).

6 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).

7 Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

8 M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

9 S.S., Docket No. 18-1488 (issued March 11, 2019).

10 See K.S., Docket No. 18-1781 (issued April 8, 2019); see L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); 

D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

11 Supra note 9. 
5

consisting of manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation as demonstrated by x-ray 

to exist. OWCP’s regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(bb) have defined subluxation as an incomplete 

dislocation, off-centering, misalignment, fixation or abnormal spacing of the vertebrae which must 

be demonstrable on an x-ray film to an individual trained in the reading of x-rays. If the diagnosis 

of a subluxation as demonstrated by x-ray is not established, the chiropractor is not a physician as 

defined under FECA and his or her report is of no probative value to the medical issue presented.12

The Board notes that Dr. Keller did not relate that her subluxation diagnosis was based on 

x-ray evidence. The Board also notes that Dr. Lamarre’s initial reports from December 21 to 

February 19, 2018, did not contain a diagnosis by x-ray of a subluxation of the spine. Accordingly,

Dr. Keller’s opinion and Dr. Lamarre’s earlier reports are of no probative value to establish 

appellant’s claim.

The Board notes that Dr. Lamarre diagnosed lumbar degenerative disc disease, lumbar 

degenerative spondylosis, lumbar disc displacement, lumbar disc herniation, lumbar stenosis, and 

lumbar radiculopathy. She also diagnosed a subluxation of the spine in her March 12, 2018 report, 

based upon x-ray evidence. Dr. Lamarre also noted the history of injury, and opined that lifting a 

parcel on December 18, 2017, caused the diagnosed conditions. However, she did not provide an 

affirmative opinion explaining how the described work incident resulted in the diagnosed medical 

conditions. The Board has found that a physician must provide a narrative description of the 

identified employment incident and a reasoned opinion on whether the employment incident 

caused or contributed to appellant’s diagnosed medical conditions.

13

 Because Dr. Lamarre did not 

provide a reasoned opinion explaining how the June 28, 2017 employment incident 

physiologically caused or contributed to appellant’s conditions, her reports are insufficient to 

establish appellant’s claim.

The December 20, 2017 lumbar MRI scan also is of limited probative value. The Board 

has held that reports of diagnostic tests lack probative value, as they do not provide an opinion on 

causal relationship between the employment incident and a diagnosed condition.14

As appellant has not submitted reasoned medical evidence explaining how a diagnosed 

lumbar condition was causally related to his accepted December 18, 2017 employment incident, 

he has not met his burden of proof.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.

 

12 R.P., Docket No. 18-0860 (issued December 4, 2018); Mary A. Ceglia, 55 ECAB 626 (2004); Jack B. Wood, 40 

ECAB 95, 109 (1988).

13 See K.S., Docket No. 18-1781 (issued April 8, 2019); see V.J., Docket No. 17-0358 (issued July 24, 2018); 

John W. Montoya, 54 ECAB 306 (2003).

14 T.H., Docket No. 18-1736 (issued March 13, 2019).

15 See A.J., Docket No. 18-1116 (issued January 23, 2019); E.C., Docket No. 17-0902 (issued March 9, 2018).
6

CONCLUSION

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

conditions were causally related to the accepted December 18, 2017 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 25, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 24, 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