United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Marlborough, MA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0539

Issued: August 6, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 11, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 1, 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a lumbar condition 

causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 26, 2018 appellant, then a 58-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, lumbar facet 

arthropathy, and disc herniation due to factors of his federal employment. He noted that he first 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

became aware of his condition on August 12, 2017 and first realized that it was employment related 

on April 23, 2018. On the reverse-side of the claim form, the employing establishment noted that 

appellant first sought medical treatment on April 23, 2018, first reported the injury on May 1, 

2018, and that he continued to work. 

In an April 23, 2018 report, Robin Greb, a nurse practitioner, noted that she originally 

consulted with appellant on June 21, 2017 at which time he complained of pain of two month’s 

duration. Appellant reported experiencing radicular symptoms in his right leg. Ms. Greb also 

noted that he was a letter carrier. At the time, appellant received conservative treatment including 

pain relievers, muscle relaxants, and physical therapy. Ms. Greb also noted that, during an 

August 2, 2017 follow-up examination, he reported no improvement in his symptoms following 

physical therapy. She indicated that she obtained a lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 

scan that revealed severe spinal canal stenosis at L3-4 and L4-5, spondylolisthesis, lumbar facet 

arthropathy, and an L5-S1 disc herniation with compression of the bilateral L5 nerve roots. 

Ms. Greb prescribed pain medication and referred appellant to an orthopedist, who in turn 

recommended epidural steroid injections and a surgery consultation. She indicated that appellant 

opted to pursue pain management therapy rather than surgery. Appellant’s treatment included 

epidural steroid injections, bilateral facet blocks, and he was currently scheduled for bilateral 

radiofrequency ablation of the medial branches, beginning with the right side. Ms. Greb also 

indicated that she reviewed his job description and noted that he continued to work with 

restrictions. She opined that all of the findings on the MRI scan were consistent with chronic 

heavy lifting and overuse. Because appellant had been carrying a mail satchel weighing 35 pounds 

and unloading mail containers weighing up to 70 pounds on a regular basis, Ms. Greb further 

opined that there was “a strong correlation between [appellant’s] present job requirements and the 

damage he ... sustained to his back, which ... is seen with chronic overuse.” She concluded her 

letter by indicating that his back issues “are concurrent with occupational disease due to chronic 

heavy lifting required for [appellant] to perform his job....” 

In a May 22, 2018 development letter, OWCP notified appellant of the type of additional 

evidence needed to establish his occupational disease claim, including factual evidence 

documenting any hazardous exposures at work and a statement from his attending physician 

explaining the causal relationship between those exposures and the claimed conditions. It

explained that a physician assistant or nurse practitioner did not qualify as a physician under 

FECA. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the requested evidence. 

In a June 15, 2018 statement, appellant indicated that carrying a mailbag caused his 

problems and that he had carried a mailbag every day for six to seven hours per day over a period 

of 19 years. He also noted that he used to bicycle before his back issues arose. 

A July 31, 2017 lumbar MRI scan noted a history of acute low back pain and bilateral feet 

numbness. The MRI scan revealed severe spinal canal stenosis at L3-4 and L4-5, 

spondylolisthesis, lumbar facet arthropathy, and a disc herniation at L5-S1 with compression of 

the bilateral L5 nerve roots, as well as moderate to high-grade spinal canal stenosis at L2-3. 

On June 14, 2018 Dr. Andrew Siber, a Board-certified internist, wrote a letter indicating 

his agreement with the facts and statements contained in Ms. Greb’s April 23, 2018 letter. He also 

provided a counter-signed copy of her letter. 
3

By decision dated August 1, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that he had not 

met his burden of proof to establish that his claimed lumbar condition was causally related to the 

accepted factors of his federal employment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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 of FECA,3that 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 to 

the employment injury.4 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.5

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.6 

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized-medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.7 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.8 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must 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).9

 

2

Id.

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

153 (1989). 

4 L.T., Docket No. 18-1603 (issued February 21, 2019); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

5 G.D., Docket No. 19-0265 (issued May 20, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

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

6 D.F., Docket No. 19-0067 (issued May 3, 2019); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

7 T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

8 M.S., Docket No. 19-0189 (issued May 14, 2019); Victor J. Woodhams, supra note 6.

9

Id.
4

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

While Dr. Siber expressed agreement with the narrative and opinions contained in

Ms. Greb’s April 23, 2018 report, the report failed to provide medical rationale to explain how the 

accepted letter carrier duties either caused or contributed to the various lumbar conditions noted 

on the July 31, 2017 MRI scan. Rather, Dr. Siber merely opined that the findings were “consistent 

with chronic heavy lifting and overuse.” The Board has held that a report is of limited probative 

value regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale explaining how a given 

medical condition was related to accepted employment factors.10 Therefore, the April 23, 2018 

report, as counter-signed by Dr. Siber, is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

Appellant’s July 31, 2017 MRI scan is also insufficient to establish causal relationship. 

The MRI scan revealed severe spinal canal stenosis at L3-4 and L4-5, spondylolisthesis, lumbar 

facet arthropathy, and a disc herniation at L5-S1 with compression of the bilateral L5 nerve roots, 

as well as moderate-to-high-grade spinal canal stenosis at L2-3, but the radiologist who interpreted 

the MRI scan did not specifically address the cause of the reported findings. The Board has 

consistently held that diagnostic studies are of limited probative value as they do not address 

whether the employment factors caused or contributed to any of the diagnosed conditions.11

The Board thus finds that the medical evidence of record is insufficient to meet appellant’s 

burden of proof.

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 a lumbar 

condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

 

10 See Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017).

11 L.T., supra note 4.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 1, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 6, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board