United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.R., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

San Francisco, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-1312 

Issued: September 20, 2017 

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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 30, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 23, 2016 merit 

decision and a February 23, 2017 nonmerit 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

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish a neck 

condition causally related to factors of her federal employment; and (2) whether OWCP properly 

denied appellant’s request for further merit review of her claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board is precluded from reviewing evidence which was not before OWCP at the time it issued its final 

decision. Thus, the Board may not consider the new evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). On appeal, appellant 

submitted new medical evidence from Dr. Paul Slosar, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, and contends that this 

evidence supports her work-related injury. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On November 2, 2016 appellant, then a 47-year-old sales/service and distribution 

associate, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained a neck 

injury caused or aggravated by processing and receiving parcels about six hours a day, six days a 

week, and weighing letters and parcels throughout the day with her arms and hands. She became 

aware of her condition on October 29, 2016 and realized its relationship to her employment on 

October 31, 2016. Appellant did not stop work. She and the employing establishment also 

submitted documents and correspondence regarding the filing of her claim and receipt of 

physical therapy. 

By letter dated November 16, 2016, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of her 

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

OWCP received a November 3, 2016 cervical spine x-ray report in which Dr. Christopher 

Yoo, a Board-certified radiologist, provided an impression of mild-to-moderate degenerative disc 

disease in the mid-cervical spine. Dr. Yoo found no fracture or mal-alignment. He 

recommended a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the cervical spine if pain persisted. 

In a November 16, 2016 cervical spine MRI scan report, Dr. Yoo provided an impression of 

multi-level degenerative disc disease from C3-Tl, notable for multiple disc protrusions which 

caused mild effacement of the anterior aspect of the cord at C3-4, C4-5, and C5-6, but no cord 

edema. He also provided an impression of posterior ossific ridge and uncovertebral hypertrophy 

at C5-6 resulting in severe left foraminal narrowing. 

OWCP received an undated attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) in which 

Dr. Herminigildo V. Valle, a Board-certified internist, noted a November 2, 2016 date of injury. 

Dr. Valle discussed examination findings and diagnosed cervicalgia neuropathy. In response to 

the form question as to whether the diagnosed condition was caused or aggravated by an 

employment activity, he wrote “unknown.” Dr. Valle advised that appellant was totally disabled 

for the period November 21 to December 12, 2016. In a November 3, 2016 prescription, he 

maintained that appellant was medically unable to work on that day. Dr. Valle reiterated, in a 

prescription dated November 17, 2016, that she was medically unable to work from 

November 21 to December 12, 2016. 

By decision dated December 23, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

medical evidence of record failed to establish that her diagnosed condition was causally related 

to her established work duties. 

In an appeal request form received on February 14, 2017, appellant requested 

reconsideration. She did not submit any additional evidence. 

In a decision dated February 23, 2017, OWCP denied further merit review of appellant’s 

claim. It found that her request for reconsideration neither raised substantive legal questions nor 

included relevant and pertinent new evidence. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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 filed within the applicable time 

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

disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are 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 on 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 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 

employment factors identified by the claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for 

which compensation is claimed or, stated differently, medical evidence establishing that the 

diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant.6

 

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical 

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

background of the employee, must be one of reasonable certainty, and must be supported by 

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

the specific employment factors identified by the employee.7 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

It is undisputed that appellant performed repetitive duties of a sales service 

associate/distribution, which involved processing and receiving parcels and weighing letters and 

parcels. The Board finds, however, that the medical evidence of record is insufficient to 

establish that she sustained a neck condition caused or aggravated by the accepted work factors. 

Dr. Valle’s in his Form CA-20 report, diagnosed cervicalgia neuropathy, but that it was 

unknown whether her employment caused her cervical condition. Further, Dr. Valle also did not 

offer an opinion addressing whether the accepted employment factors caused appellant’s total 

disability for the period November 21 to December 12, 2016. The Board has held that 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

 His remaining prescription notes 

 3 Supra note 1. 

4 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

5 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

6 Id. 

7 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, id. 

8 C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); J.F., Docket No. 09-1061 (issued November 17, 2009); A.D., 

58 ECAB 149 (2006). 
4

dated November 3 and 17, 2016 addressed appellant’s work capacity, but failed to offer a 

specific opinion as to whether the established employment factors caused or aggravated 

appellant’s condition and resultant disability.9 For these reasons, the Board finds that Dr. Valle’s 

report and prescriptions are of diminished probative value. 

Similarly, Dr. Yoo’s diagnostic test results are of diminished probative value as they 

failed to offer an opinion on whether appellant’s diagnosed cervical conditions were caused or 

aggravated by the established employment factors.10 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to submit any rationalized, probative medical 

evidence sufficient to establish a neck injury causally related to the established employment 

factors. Appellant, therefore, did not meet her 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. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

Section 8128 of FECA vests OWCP with a discretionary authority to determine whether 

it will review an award for or against compensation, either under its own authority or on 

application by a claimant.11 Section 10.608(b) of OWCP’s regulations provide that a timely 

request for reconsideration may be granted if OWCP determines that the claimant has presented 

evidence and/or argument that meet at least one of the standards described in section 

10.606(b)(3).12 This section provides that the application for reconsideration must be submitted 

in writing and set forth arguments and contain evidence that either: (1) shows that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advances a relevant legal argument 

not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not 

previously considered by OWCP.13 Section 10.608(b) provides that when a request for 

reconsideration is timely but fails to meet at least one of these three requirements, OWCP will 

deny the application for reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on the merits.14

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

Appellant disagreed with OWCP’s denial of her occupational disease claim for a neck 

injury causally related to the established factors of her employment. On February 14, 2017 she 

requested reconsideration. 

 9 Supra note 7. 

10 Id.

11 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

12 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(a). 

13 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3). 

14 Id. at § 10.608(b). 
5

The Board finds that appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law, advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered 

by OWCP, or provide relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by OWCP. 

Appellant’s February 14, 2017 reconsideration request consisted only of a checkmark on 

an appeal request form indicating that she wanted reconsideration. She did not offer any 

argument or submit any evidence in support of her request. Appellant suggested no reason for 

OWCP to reconsider the denial of her occupational disease claim. Such a bare request is 

insufficient to warrant a reopening of her case.15

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to meet her burden of proof to establish a neck 

condition causally related to factors of her federal employment. The Board further finds, that 

OWCP properly refused to reopen her case for further merit review of her claim pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 23, 2017 and December 23, 2016 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: September 20, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 15 See I.J., Docket No. 16-1380 (issued November 22, 2016); L.B., Docket No. 14-2064 (issued February 3, 

2015); J.A., Docket No. 14-1447 (issued October 21, 2014).