United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

I.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Baltimore, MD, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1217

Issued: December 16, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 6, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from January 8 and April 29, 2019 merit 

decisions 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 neck and back 

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 16, 2018 appellant, then a 62-year-old motor vehicle operator, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he aggravated his preexisting cervical 

degenerative disease and cervical and lumbar radiculopathy due to repetitive factors of his federal 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

employment including climbing into and out of his vehicle, loading and unloading, and pushing 

heavy equipment. He indicated that he first became aware of his condition, and of its relationship 

to factors of his federal employment, on May 29, 2018. 

In a series of work excuse notes dated April 4, 12, and May 1, 2018, Dr. Kevin P. Carter, 

a Board-certified family practitioner, noted that appellant was unable to return to work from 

April 2 to May 12, 2018. 

In a report dated May 25, 2018, Dr. Carter indicated that appellant had complained of left 

shoulder pain and occasional left arm and leg weakness in February and March 2018. He noted 

that he referred appellant for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of his cervical and lumbar 

spine. Prior to the MRI scan, on March 19, 2018, appellant reported the aforementioned symptoms 

and was taken from work by emergency vehicle to the hospital for further testing. Dr. Carter 

indicated that appellant received an MRI scan on March 21, 2018, which revealed multilevel 

degenerative changes that have caused moderate central canal stenosis and severe bilateral 

foraminal stenosis at the C4-5, C5-6, and C6-7 levels, and significant bilateral foraminal stenosis 

at the L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 levels. He opined that the foraminal stenosis seen in appellant’s 

cervical and lumbar spine likely was there prior to the March 19, 2018 employment incident. 

Dr. Carter further opined that physical activity as well as other ambulatory activity could cause 

radicular symptoms based on the findings in his cervical and lumbar spine. He indicated that 

activities of appellant’s normal work routine could also aggravate his cervical and lumbar spinal 

disease. 

In a report dated May 29, 2018, Dr. William W. Ashley Jr., a Board-certified neurosurgeon, 

reviewed appellant’s history of injury and diagnostic examinations and performed a physical 

examination. He diagnosed an incidental small aneurysm and he further diagnosed cervical 

degenerative disease. Dr. Ashley opined that repetitive lifting, bending, and twisting may have 

contributed to appellant’s cervical condition. 

In a letter dated October 18, 2018, the employing establishment challenged appellant’s 

claim contending that he had failed to establish that his injury occurred as alleged. It also argued 

that appellant failed to provide medical documentation to establish prima facie causal relationship 

between his claimed conditions and specific factors of his federal employment. In an addendum 

to the letter on the same date, the employing establishment noted that appellant submitted evidence 

that was previously submitted for a previous traumatic injury claim under OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx026. It related that the prior claim was denied on June 29, 2018. 

In a development letter dated October 25, 2018, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim, and advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to 

establish his claim. It provided a questionnaire for his completion, and afforded him 30 days to 

submit the necessary evidence. 

In a report dated November 13, 2018, Dr. Ashley reiterated appellant’s cervical 

degenerative disease diagnosis. He opined that the employment activities that may have caused, 

contributed to, or aggravated appellant’s medical conditions were repetitive lifting, bending, and 

twisting. Dr. Ashley related that he could not account for any previous circumstances that may 

have contributed to appellant’s current conditions. 
3

On November 21, 2018 appellant responded to OWCP’s questionnaire. He indicated that 

he initially filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) based on his supervisor’s instructions, and 

that once he spoke to his union representative he was given the correct information regarding his 

alleged condition and filed a Form CA-2. Appellant related that he had designated May 29, 2018 

as the date he first became aware of his alleged conditions because prior to that date he had not 

been given an actual diagnosis. 

By decision dated January 8, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the events occurred as he described. In 

addition, it also found that he had not submitted any medical evidence to establish that his 

diagnosed medical conditions were causally related to the alleged employment injury or event. 

OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as 

defined by FECA. 

On January 29, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s January 8, 2019 

decision. He submitted a personal statement along with his request in which he emphasized that 

he first became aware of his diagnosed condition on May 29, 2018, and that he was last exposed 

to factors of his federal employment on March 19, 2018. 

By decision dated April 29, 2019, OWCP affirmed, as modified, its January 8, 2019 

decision finding that appellant established the factual component of his claim, but failed to 

establish that his diagnosed conditions were causally related to the 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 period 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 

In an occupational disease claim, appellant’s burden of proof requires submission of the 

following: (1) a factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or 

contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or condition; (2) medical evidence 

 

2

Id.

3 A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 2019); 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.W., Docket No. 19-0698 (issued September 3, 2019); J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 

59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

5 L.W., id.; A.M., supra note 3; 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).
4

establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is 

claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to 

the employment factors identified by the employee.6

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish causal 

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.7 The opinion of the physician must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background of the claimant, 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.8 

Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment 

nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or 

incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish neck and back 

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

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a series of work excuses dated from April 4 to 

May 1, 2018, as well as a May 25, 2018 narrative report from Dr. Carter. As Dr. Carter did not 

provide an opinion regarding causal relationship between appellant’s claimed conditions and the 

accepted factors of his federal employment, these reports are of no probative value and are 

insufficient to establish the claim.

10

 In his May 25, 2018 report, Dr. Carter first diagnosed cervical 

degenerative disease and aneurysm. He opined that the foraminal stenosis seen in appellant’s 

cervical and lumbar spine likely was there prior to the March 19, 2018 employment incident, and 

that physical activity as well as other ambulatory activity could cause radicular symptoms based 

on the findings in his cervical and lumbar spine. While Dr. Carter’s May 25, 2018 report offers 

an opinion on causal relationship, the report is of limited probative value because it does not 

explain, with rationale, how, physiologically, appellant’s specific job duties caused his diagnosed 

conditions.11 

In his May 29, 2018 report, Dr. Ashley opined that repetitive lifting, bending, and twisting 

may have contributed to appellant’s cervical condition. In his November 13, 2018 report, he 

opined that the employment activities that may have caused, contributed to, or aggravated 

appellant’s medical conditions were repetitive lifting, bending, and twisting. Dr. Ashley also 

related that he could not account for any previous circumstances that may have contributed to 

appellant’s current conditions. While these reports describe appellant’s job duties and state that 

 

6 T.B., Docket No. 19-0780 (issued September 17, 2019); E.M., Docket No. 18-0275 (issued June 8, 2018).

7 T.B., id.; A.M., Docket No. 18-0685 (issued October 26, 2018).

8 L.W., supra note 4; E.V., Docket No. 18-0106 (issued April 5, 2018).

9 T.B., supra note 6; E.M., supra note 6; Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997).

10 Supra note 8. 

11 S.H., Docket No. 19-0631 (issued September 5, 2019); see Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017).
5

his duties may have caused, contributed to, or aggravated his conditions, they are not unequivocal,

but rather are speculative in nature. The Board has held that medical opinions which are equivocal 

or speculative are of diminished probative value.12 These reports also lack medical rationale as to 

how these activities would have caused, contributed to, or aggravated appellant’s conditions. They 

are therefore are of limited probative value.13

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing that his 

diagnosed conditions are causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment, the 

Board finds that he has not met his 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 neck and back 

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

 

12 T.S., Docket No. 18-1702 (issued October 4, 2019); see P.H., Docket No. 16-0654 (issued July 21, 2016).

13 Supra note 11; J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 29 and January 8, 2019 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: December 16, 2019

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board