United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NORFOLK 

NAVAL SHIPYARD, Portsmouth, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-0512

Issued: June 21, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Stephen Domenic Scavuzzo, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 3, 2017 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 8, 2016 

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained

cervical conditions causally related to the accepted March 16, 2015 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 28, 2016 appellant, a 63-year-old woodcrafter, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form 

CA-1) alleging that he sustained a neck and leg injury on March 16, 2015 as a result of slipping 

on ice while getting logs in the performance of duty. He did not stop work. Appellant also filed 

claims for wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) for the period September 21 to October 23, 2015. 

Appellant submitted a witness statement from a coworker indicating that appellant slipped 

and fell on ice at work during the winter of 2015 on the north side of Building 369. 

In a March 18, 2015 report Dr. Matthew T. Mayr, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, 

diagnosed neck pain, whiplash, and arm numbness. He noted that appellant presented with neck 

pain resulting from a ground-level fall. Appellant had slipped on ice and landed on his back. He 

had no loss of consciousness. Upon physical examination, Dr. Mayr found atrophy of appellant’s 

left hand due to a prior C8 radiculopathy. He noted that appellant still had numbness in those 

areas. 

A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the cervical spine dated June 8, 2015 

demonstrated an interval change at the C5-6 level with a disc herniation centrally and into the right 

neural foramen. 

In a May 28, 2015 report, Dr. Mayr noted that appellant had increasing neck and arm pain. 

He noted that appellant had new right arm numbness that he had never had before and if he held 

his hand over his head, the whole arm went numb. On June 18, 2015 Dr. Mayr found that a cervical 

spine MRI scan showed a new herniated disc at C5-6. He also found that plain films showed 

severe degenerative disc disease at C4-5, C5-6, and C6-7 with collapse and significant anterior 

osteophytes. Dr. Mayr diagnosed herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP), cervical, and recommended 

surgery. On July 16, 2015 he indicated that appellant had been under his care for cervical 

spondylosis and stenosis and was planning to proceed with surgical intervention. On July 22, 2015

Dr. Mayr advised that appellant was capable of working with the following restrictions: no lifting, 

pushing, or pulling greater than 25 pounds; and no repetitive bending or twisting. 

In an October 26, 2015 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of his claim and 

afforded him 30 days to submit additional evidence and respond to its inquiries. 

Subsequently, appellant submitted a narrative statement dated October 27, 2015 indicating 

that he previously had “TI surgery, but there was nothing wrong with C3, C4, or C5.”

By decision dated November 19, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between his diagnosed 

conditions and the accepted March 16, 2015 employment incident. 
3

On December 18, 2015 counsel requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. Appellant submitted hospital records regarding his 

anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at C4-7 performed by Dr. Mayr on September 14, 2015, 

which included pre- and postoperative diagnostic testing results. 

In a May 23, 2016 letter, counsel withdrew his request for an oral hearing and requested 

that the case proceed to a review of the written record. 

Appellant submitted further documentation of his September 14, 2015 cervical surgery, 

including significant additional submissions of hospital records. He also submitted reports dated 

March 18, 2015 through April 6, 2016 from Dr. Mayr who reiterated that appellant slipped and 

fell on ice at work on March 16, 2015 and injured his back, neck, and arm. Dr. Mayr indicated 

that appellant was still having problems where he could not lift his head up and pain especially 

while driving distances. On April 6, 2016 he reported that appellant’s pain was so bad that he 

went to the emergency room to be checked out a couple of weeks prior. 

In a January 5, 2016 report, Dr. Mayr opined that appellant had recovered sufficiently to 

be able to return to light-duty work effective January 11, 2016 with the following restrictions: no 

lifting, pushing, or pulling greater than 10 pounds; no prolonged driving; no repetitive bending; 

no overhead work; and no crawling. 

On April 19, 2016 Dr. Mayr noted that appellant was still under his care and provided the 

following work restrictions to be in effect for six months: no lifting, pushing, or pulling greater 

than 10 pounds; no overhead work; no repetitive bending or twisting; no crawling; and no 

prolonged driving. 

By decision dated July 8, 2016, an OWCP hearing representative conducted a review of 

the written record and reversed the November 19, 2015 decision in part, finding appellant had 

established his claim for whiplash, resolved. The hearing representative also affirmed the 

November 19, 2015 decision in part, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient 

to establish causal relationship between appellant’s other diagnosed conditions and the accepted 

March 16, 2015 employment injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period of FECA, 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 

to the employment injury.4

 

3

Id.

4 See T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008).
4

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

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

fact of injury determination is based on two elements. First, the employee must submit sufficient 

evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the time,

place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit sufficient evidence, generally 

only in the form of medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused a personal 

injury. An employee may establish that the employment incident occurred as alleged, but fail to 

show that his or her condition relates to the employment incident.5

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence generally 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 medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the 

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors 

identified by the employee.6

ANALYSIS

By decision dated July 8, 2016, an OWCP hearing representative accepted appellant’s

claim for whiplash, resolved. Therefore, the issue currently under consideration is whether 

appellant’s cervical conditions are causally related to the March 16, 2015 employment injury. The 

Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof to establish causal relationship.

In a report dated March 18, 2015, Dr. Mayr diagnosed neck pain, whiplash, and arm 

numbness resulting from a ground-level fall at work on March 16, 2015 where appellant had 

slipped on ice and landed on his back. Upon physical examination, he found atrophy of his left 

hand due to a prior C8 radiculopathy. In his October 27, 2015 narrative statement, appellant 

indicated that he previously had “TI surgery, but there was nothing wrong with C3, C4, or C5.” 

In a May 28, 2015 report, Dr. Mayr noted that appellant had increasing neck and arm pain. He 

also noted that appellant had new right arm numbness that he had never had before. On June 18, 

2015 Dr. Mayr found that a cervical spine MRI scan showed a new herniated disc at C5-6. He 

also found that plain films showed severe degenerative disc disease at C4-5, C5-6, and C6-7 with 

collapse and significant anterior osteophytes. Dr. Mayr diagnosed cervical HNP, cervical 

spondylosis, and cervical stenosis and recommended surgery. He performed an anterior cervical 

discectomy and fusion at C4-7 on September 14, 2015. 

The Board finds that Dr. Mayr failed to provide sufficient medical rationale explaining the 

mechanism of how slipping on ice while getting logs at work on March 16, 2015 caused or 

aggravated appellant’s cervical conditions. Dr. Mayr noted that appellant’s conditions occurred 

while he was at work, but such generalized statements are insufficient to establish causal 

relationship because they merely repeat appellant’s allegations and are unsupported by adequate 

medical rationale explaining how his physical activity at work actually caused or aggravated the 

 

5

Id.

6

Id.
5

diagnosed cervical conditions.7 The need for rationale is particularly important as the evidence of 

record indicates that appellant had preexisting cervical conditions for which he received medical 

treatment and prior surgery. Dr. Mayr did not otherwise sufficiently explain the reasons why 

diagnostic testing and examination findings led him to conclude that the accepted March 16, 2015 

injury at work was sufficient to have caused or contributed to the diagnosed cervical conditions. 

Thus, the Board finds that the reports from Dr. Mayr are insufficient to establish that appellant 

sustained cervical conditions causally related to the accepted March 16, 2015 employment injury

requiring surgical intervention on September 14, 2015.8

Other medical evidence of record, including diagnostic test reports, is of limited probative 

value as it does not specifically address whether appellant’s diagnosed cervical conditions are 

causally related to the accepted March 16, 2015 work injury.

9

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence sufficient

to support his allegation that he sustained cervical conditions and underwent surgery causally 

related to the accepted March 16, 2015 employment injury.

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 that he sustained 

cervical conditions causally related to an accepted March 16, 2015 employment injury.

 

7 See K.W., Docket No. 10-0098 (issued September 10, 2010).

8 Cf. V.L., Docket No. 14-1040 (issued February 20, 2015) (where the claimant’s treating physician diagnosed a 

herniated nucleus pulposus at C5-6 and explained that the employee was not symptomatic with neck pain until the 

whiplash effects of the motor vehicle incident snapped her head up-and-down likely resulting in a herniated disc at 

the level of the prior degenerative disc disease, the Board found that further development of the medical evidence was 

warranted and remanded the case for a review by an OWCP medical adviser).

9 See K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); Linda I. Sprague, 48 ECAB 386 (1997) (medical 

evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value 

on the issue of causal relationship).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 8, 2016 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 21, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board