United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.I., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

Andover, MA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1123

Issued: February 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 14, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 18, 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

 

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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish allergic and 

respiratory conditions causally related to a June 2, 2017 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 6, 2017 appellant, then a 57-year-old examining technician, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she sustained dyspnea on June 2, 2017 due to exposure to 

hazardous materials at work. She indicated that she thought that the cleaning person was only 

cleaning a coworker’s office on that date, but that she started coughing and had trouble breathing. 

Appellant asserted that her throat felt raw and her arms became very itchy. She further claimed 

that she smelled bug spray on June 2, 2017. Appellant stopped work on the date of injury.

3

In June 5 and 15, 2017 notes, Dr. Christen P. Fragala, an attending Board-certified family 

practitioner, indicated that appellant was disabled from work. In an attending physician’s report

(Form CA-20) dated June 14, 2017, she cited exposure to bug spray and diagnosed asthma due to 

fume inhalation. In a June 21, 2017 report, Dr. Fragala noted that a chest x-ray was normal. She 

further noted that appellant was prescribed Prednisone and that she attempted to work on June 13, 

2017, but had another reaction and stopped work. 

In a June 8, 2017 memorandum, the employing establishment addressed a complaint filed 

with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding office exposure to 

pesticides. It noted that, on May 21, 2017, a pesticide was applied at the employing establishment 

because of bed bugs, but that employees were not present when the pesticide was applied. The 

employing establishment also indicated that, since 2015, the carpet cleaner Nilodor was used at 

the employing establishment, most recently on June 2, 2017. A material safety data sheet (MSDS) 

for Nilodor indicated that the product can irritate the eyes and respiratory system.

In a July 13, 2017 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional 

evidence in support of her claim, including a physician’s opinion supported by a medical 

explanation as to how the reported work conditions/exposures caused or aggravated a medical 

condition. It also requested that she complete and return an attached questionnaire which posed 

various questions regarding the employment factors which she believed caused or aggravated her 

claimed condition.

Appellant subsequently submitted a June 5, 2017 report in which Dr. Fragala diagnosed 

asthma in connection with exposure to bug spray at work. In a July 3, 2017 report, Dr. David 

Gruenberg, a Board-certified allergist, noted a history of asthma symptoms for several years and 

rhinitis for several months. In a report dated July 10, 2017, he diagnosed rhinitis due to possible 

mold at work, noting appellant had allergies to dogs and mold.

In a report dated June 27, 2017, Dr. Zaffar K. Haque, a Board-certified pulmonologist, 

indicated that appellant was leaving employment with the employing establishment for a position 

 

3 On the reverse side of the claim form, appellant’s immediate supervisor, A.S., contended that appellant’s injury 

did not occur in the performance of duty.
3

with another agency. He noted a history of exposure to carpet cleaner and bug spray at the

employing establishment. Dr. Haque diagnosed occupational asthma and reactive airway disease. 

In a July 21, 2017 form report, he diagnosed hives and indicated that it was employment related.

In a statement dated July 26, 2017, E.B., a coworker, noted that she had noticed a strong 

odor at work on June 2, 2017 that smelled like “Raid” insect spray. She indicated that she had no 

ill effects from such odor, while appellant did become ill.

In a report dated August 9, 2017, Dr. Gruenberg noted that a pulmonary function test was 

normal. Appellant tested positive for allergy to dogs and mold. He indicated that, upon physical 

examination, she exhibited wheezing and a rash. Dr. Gruenberg diagnosed asthma and allergic 

rhinitis. He referenced a history of workplace exposure to fumes and noted that there was no 

history of asthma prior to June 2, 2017.

In an August 31, 2017 statement, A.S., appellant’s immediate supervisor, noted that she 

did not smell bug spray in the office.

By decision dated August 31, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an employmentrelated injury on June 2, 2017. It denied her claim because the evidence of record did not support 

causal relationship between accepted exposure to fumes at work and the diagnosed allergic or 

respiratory conditions. OWCP found that there was no documented exposure to mold or bug spray 

on June 2, 2017 and noted that the attending physicians did not provide medical rationale in 

support of causal relationship regarding appellant’s exposure to cleaning products. 

Appellant subsequently requested a review of the written record by a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review and submitted additional evidence. In a September 23, 

2017 letter, she noted that on June 2, 2017 she was exposed to Nilodor spot remover (carpet 

cleaner) resulting in coughing and shortness of breath. Appellant noted that the MSDS for Nilodor 

spot remover showed the product could irritate the respiratory system. She submitted a copy of a 

report she filed with the employing establishment for exposure to chemical fumes at her worksite. 

Appellant also submitted copies of e-mails between herself and A.S. which were dated between 

June 2 and 7, 2017. In the e-mails, she asserted that she smelled bug spray in the office after a 

nearby cubicle was cleaned, and that the cleaning solution used in the office contained irritants. 

Appellant indicated that an MSDS for “All Natural Green” cleaner noted that potential hazards 

included eye irritation, skin irritation, and aspiration hazard.

By decision dated January 18, 2018, a hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s August 31, 

2017 decision, noting that appellant had not met her burden of proof to establish an employmentrelated injury.

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, that the injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as 
4

alleged, and that any disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally 

related to the employment injury.4 

To determine whether a federal employee 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 or she 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.5

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship generally is rationalized 

medical opinion evidence.6 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 established employment factors.7

Where an injury is claimed in connection with chemical exposure, the treating physician 

must explain in detail how workplace exposures caused or contributed to diagnosed conditions.8 

The coincidence in time between the onset of symptoms and the fact that an employee was working 

in an office environment is speculative where there is no rationalized explanation that the condition 

was caused by the work environment.9 

Where there is a preexisting condition affecting the same part of the body where a work 

injury or illness is claimed, the attending physician must provide a rationalized medical opinion 

which differentiates between the effects of the employment-related injury or disease and the 

preexisting condition.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish allergic and 

respiratory conditions causally related to a June 2, 2017 employment incident.

The Board notes that the case record reflects that, on June 2, 2017, the Andover office 

where appellant worked had been cleaned with the cleaning/odor removal substances Nilodor

carpet cleaner and All Natural Green. The employing establishment has not disputed appellant’s 

 

4 5 U.S.C. § 8101(1); B.B., 59 ECAB 234 (2007); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

5 P.B., Docket No. 18-1322 (issued January 2, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008).

6 F.S., Docket No. 15-1052 (issued July 17, 2015); Tomas Martinez, 54 ECAB 623 (2003).

7 P.K., Docket No. 08-2551 (issued June 2, 2009); John W. Montoya, 54 ECAB 306 (2003).

8 Nicolette R. Kelstrom, 54 ECAB 570 (2003).

9

Id.

10 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3(e) (January 2013).
5

assertion that Nilodor carpet cleaner and All Natural Green were used to clean the Andover office

on June 2, 2017 and appellant’s exposure to these substances has been established. The case record 

further reflects that, on May 21, 2017, a pesticide was used in the Andover office when no 

employees were present. A coworker, E.B., indicated that she thought she smelled something like 

a commercial insect spray on June 2, 2017, but this statement was contradicted by a statement 

from A.S., who smelled no such odor. Appellant has not presented probative evidence, such as an 

environmental report, to meet her burden of proof to establish that residuals of the pesticide were 

present in her workplace on June 2, 2017.11 Therefore, she has not established exposure to “bug 

spray” on June 2, 2017, as alleged. In addition, appellant has not submitted probative evidence 

documenting exposure to mold at the Andover office. In summary, the case record establishes that 

only she was exposed to fumes or odors from Nilodor carpet cleaner and All Natural Green cleaner

on June 2, 2017.

The Board finds that appellant failed to meet her burden of proof to submit a rationalized 

medical opinion relating the accepted employment exposure to a diagnosed medical condition. 

The reports of appellant’s attending physicians are of limited probative value on the underlying 

issue of this case because these physicians did not provide a rationalized medical opinion relating 

appellant’s exposure to Nilodor carper cleaner or All Natural Green to a specific allergic or

pulmonary condition. The Board has held that a report is of limited probative value regarding 

causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale explaining how an employment factor 

could have caused or aggravated a medical condition.12 

In a June 5 and 14, 2017 reports, Dr. Fragala noted that appellant had been exposed to bug 

spray, an exposure which has not been accepted in this case, and she generally attributed an asthma 

condition to inhalation of fumes at work. However, she did not specify the precise nature of these 

fumes or otherwise provide a clear rationalized opinion that appellant’s diagnosed condition was 

related to her exposure to Nilodor carper cleaner or All Natural Green.13 Dr. Fragala did not 

explain why appellant’s current complaints were not solely due to preexisting allergic/ pulmonary 

conditions, rather than being due to exposure to Nilodor carper cleaner or All Natural Green.14 

In July 10 and August 9, 2017 reports, Dr. Gruenberg indicated that appellant had been 

exposed to mold at work, an exposure which has not been accepted in this case, and he only 

generally referenced exposure to fumes at work. In reports dated July 3 and 10, and August 9, 

2017, he variously diagnosed asthma and rhinitis. In the July 10, 2017 report, Dr. Gruenberg

related the rhinitis diagnosis to mold at work. His reports also are of limited probative value due 

to his failure to provide a rationalized opinion on causal relationship.15 The Board notes that

 

11 See supra note 5 regarding the claimant’s burden of proof to establish the factual aspect of a traumatic injury 

claim.

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

13 See D.R., Docket No. 16-0528 (issued August 24, 2016) (finding that a report is of limited probative value 

regarding causal relationship without medical rationale explaining the relationship between a given employment 

activity and a diagnosed medical condition).

14 See supra note 6.

15 See supra note 7.
6

Dr. Gruenberg’s opinion is of limited probative value for the further reason that it was not based 

on a complete and accurate factual and medical history. Dr. Gruenberg indicated in his July 3, 

2017 report that appellant had asthma for several years, but he contradictorily advised in his 

August 9, 2017 report that appellant had no prior history of asthma. The Board has held that an 

opinion on a given medical question is of limited probative value if it is not based on a complete 

and accurate factual and medical history.16

In addition, Dr. Haque indicated in a June 27, 2017 report that appellant had been exposed 

to mold at work, an exposure which has not been accepted in this case. He also referenced her

exposure to carpet cleaner and related her condition to this substance. Dr. Haque’s opinion is of 

limited probative value on the underlying issue of this case because the Board has held that a 

conclusory opinion on causal relationship, lacking adequate medical rationale, is insufficient to meet 

a claimant’s burden of proof to establish a claim.17 Appellant’s burden includes the necessity of 

furnishing an affirmative opinion from a physician who supports his or her conclusion with sound 

medical reasoning.18 Dr. Haque did not provide medical rationale explaining how the specific 

ingredients in Nilodor carpet cleaner affected appellant’s allergic or pulmonary condition.19

For these reasons, appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish causal relationship 

between the accepted employment-related exposure on June 2, 2017 and a diagnosed medical 

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. 

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish allergic and 

respiratory conditions causally related to a June 2, 2017 employment incident.

 

16 E.R., Docket No. 15-1046 (issued November 12, 2015).

17 J.D., Docket No. 14-2061 (issued February 27, 2015).

18 Lillian M. Jones, 34 ECAB 379, 381 (1982).

19 In a July 21, 2017 form report, Dr. Haque diagnosed hives and indicated that this condition was employment 

related. However, he did not provide any explanation for this opinion.
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 18, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: February 6, 2019

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