United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Sturgis, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0498

Issued: August 27, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Anita Lewallen, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 3, 2020 appellant, through his representative, filed a timely appeal from a 

December 12, 2019 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 a medical condition

causally related to the accepted January 5, 2017 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 5, 2017 appellant, then a 46-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that he experienced back pain when the back door of a long life vehicle 

(LLV) fell and struck him while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on January 5, 2017 

and returned to work on January 8, 2017.

On January 5, 2017 appellant was treated in the emergency room by Dr. Robert Sherwin, 

Board-certified in emergency medicine, for lumbar contusion, and lumbago with sciatica of the 

left side. He placed appellant off work from January 5 to 8, 2017. A January 5, 2017 computerized 

tomography scan of the lumbar spine revealed no fracture or other acute abnormality, L4-5 broadbased left paracentral disc protrusion causing effacement of the central canal, L5-S1 moderate disc 

space narrowing, mild spondylosis, and diffuse disc bulging. Patrick MacKnick, a certified

physician assistant working in the emergency room, also treated appellant on January 5, 2017 for 

back and neck injuries which appellant indicated occurred when a heavy door fell on his lower 

back. He diagnosed lumbar contusion.

In a January 5, 2017 authorization for examination and/or treatment (Form CA-16), the 

employing establishment authorized appellant to seek medical care. In Part B of the Form CA-16, 

attending physician’s report, dated January 9, 2017, Kristin A. Smith, a physician assistant, 

reported that he was struck by a mail truck door at work and injured his lower back. She diagnosed 

trauma to lumbar spine and associated pain. Ms. Smith checked a box marked “Yes” indicating 

that the diagnosed conditions were caused or aggravated by the described employment activity. 

She opined that appellant was totally disabled from work beginning January 5, 2017. In a duty 

status report (Form CA-17) of even date, Ms. Smith diagnosed left spine pain and trauma and 

advised that he was disabled from work. 

On February 10, 2017 Dr. Mark J. Krinock, a Board-certified neurologist, treated appellant 

for acute low back pain due to trauma. Appellant reported that, on January 5, 2017 while at work,

the rear door of his vehicle fell onto his lower back. Dr. Krinock noted a history of low back 

surgery approximately 20 years ago and diagnosed acute back pain due to trauma, chronic low 

back pain, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, left leg pain, and lumbar spondylosis. In 

a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated February 10, 2017, he diagnosed back and leg pain and 

noted that appellant continued to be disabled. Dr. Krinock prepared a certification of healthcare 

provider on February 22, 2017 and noted that appellant experienced back pain radiating into the 

left lower extremity. He continued to find appellant disabled from work.

OWCP received a February 24, 2017 x-ray of the lumbar spine, which revealed very mild 

degenerative disc changes at L5-S1. A magnetic resonance imaging scan of the lumbar spine of 

even date revealed previous left laminectomy discectomy at L4-5, granulation tissue within the 

epidural space, possible left central extruded disc material, small right central disc protrusion 
3

partially mineralized at L5-S1 abutting and mildly displacing the right S1 nerve root, and 

additional mild degenerative changes.

In a March 16, 2017 development letter, OWCP advised that, when appellant’s claim was 

received, it appeared to be a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time from work. 

Therefore, payment of a limited amount of medical expenses was administratively approved 

without formal consideration of the merits of his claim. OWCP reopened appellant’s claim for 

consideration of the merits. It advised him of the deficiencies of his claim and requested additional 

factual and medical evidence from him. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

Appellant attended physical therapy treatment on March 1, 2017.

Dr. Krinock treated appellant on March 6 and April 3, 2017 in follow-up and diagnosed 

acute back pain, acute back pain due to trauma, chronic low back pain, lumbar degenerative disc 

disease, herniated nucleus pulposus at L4-5, left lumbar radiculopathy, lumbar spondylosis, and 

recurrent herniation of lumbar disc. He recommended an epidural steroid injection. In a letter 

dated March 21, 2017, Dr. Krinock advised that appellant did well following his back surgery in 

the 1990’s and it was not until January 5, 2017, when appellant bent over and the door of his 

vehicle fell onto his back that he experienced severe low back pain radiating into the left lower 

extremity. He noted that the x-ray reports demonstrated a recurrent disc herniation at the L4-5 

level, which correlated with appellant’s back and left leg pain. Dr. Krinock continued to 

recommended an epidural steroid injection. In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated March 9 

and April 3, 2017, he diagnosed disc herniation and lumbar radiculopathy and noted that appellant 

remained disabled.

On March 16, 2017 Dr. Kevin Drew, a Board-certified anesthesiologist, treated appellant 

for low back and left leg pain, which began after appellant was struck by a truck door on 

January 5, 2017. His history was significant for prior lumbar surgery. Dr. Drew diagnosed 

subacute low back and left leg pain, left S1 radiculopathy, history of previous L4-5 laminectomy, 

possible internal disc disruption, and lumbar zygapophyseal joint pain. He recommended an 

epidural steroid injection.

By decision dated April 28, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim finding 

that the medical evidence submitted was insufficient to establish causal relationship between his 

diagnosed condition and the accepted January 5, 2017 employment incident. 

On August 15, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration. He submitted a July 14, 2017 

letter from Dr. Krinock, who described appellant’s injury which occurred when the weight of a 

vehicle door fell on his back causing pain. Dr. Krinock opined that “this truly represents a causeand-effect” and a traumatic aggravation of appellant’s condition. In a Form CA-17 dated June 15, 

2017, he diagnosed disc herniation and returned appellant to part-time work four hours per day. 

In a July 10, 2017 Form CA-17, Dr. Krinock diagnosed disc herniation and returned appellant to 

work six hours a day with restrictions.

By decision dated October 23, 2017, OWCP denied modification of the decision dated 

April 28, 2017.
4

On March 20, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration. He submitted a February 28, 2018 

report from Dr. Krinock, who noted a history of appellant’s back surgery and the subsequent 

January 5, 2017 work injury. Dr. Krinock opined that the new onset of symptoms following a 

trauma had resulted in a recurrent disc herniation at the L4-5 level and unequivocally accelerated 

any potential decline in function.

By decision dated June 14, 2018, OWCP denied modification of the decision dated 

October 23, 2017.

On April 18, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration. He submitted a March 6, 2019 

report from Dr. Jerry Powell, a Board-certified family practitioner, who noted a history of injury 

and medical treatment. Dr. Powell diagnosed other intervertebral disc displacement lumbosacral 

region, disc disorder/lumbar spine radiculopathy, and other intervertebral disc degeneration in the 

lumbar spine. On January 5, 2017 he noted that appellant was leaning into the back of his LLV to 

get mail and the back door cable and spring broke causing the 100-pound door to come crashing 

down on appellant’s lumbar spine trapping him. Dr. Powell opined that as the door impacted 

appellant’s lumbar spine it caused the previously surgically repaired disc at L4-5 to herniate and 

caused a moderate diffuse disc bulging at L5-S1. He noted that the jelly like nucleus disc, which 

moved within the outer annulus according to the pressures of the spine, was displaced causing the 

protrusion and bulging. Dr. Powell indicated that the 100-pound weighted doors impact to the 

lumbar spine was in excess of a tolerable force and caused the L4-5 and L5-S1 discs to protrude 

and bulge causing a decreased amount of space for the nerve to exit, causing nerve impingement 

and radiculopathy. He opined that appellant sustained a herniation of his lumbar disc at L4-5, the 

protrusion of L5-S1 of the central disc displacing the right S1 nerve root, acceleration of the 

degenerative changes at L5-S1, and permanent aggravation of lumbosacral osteoarthritis as a direct 

result of the 100-pound door falling on his back while performing his work duties. 

By decision dated July 15, 2019, OWCP denied modification of the decision dated 

June 14, 2018.

On September 13, 2019 appellant through his representative, requested reconsideration.

He submitted an amended report from Dr. Powell dated September 12, 2019 and corrected the date 

of thoracic and lumber spine x-rays from September 12, 2019 to May 16, 2013. Dr. Powell 

explained that the disc herniation at L4-5, L5-S1 disc space narrowing vacuum disc phenomena, 

and moderate disc bulging with mild spondylosis was due to the new trauma that occurred on 

January 5, 2017, which also aggravated and exacerbated the degenerative osteoarthritic condition

that was previously asymptomatic.

By decision dated December 12, 2019, OWCP denied modification of the July 15, 2019 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including that the individual is an employee of the United 

 

3

Id.
5

States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation of FECA,4that 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.5 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.6

To determine whether a federal employee has 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, place, and in the manner alleged. The second component is whether the employment incident 

caused a personal injury and can be established only by medical evidence.7

The medical evidence required to establish a causal relationship between a claimed specific 

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence.8 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 specific employment factors 

identified by the employee.9

In any case where a preexisting condition involving the same part of the body is present 

and the issue of causal relationship therefore involves aggravation, acceleration, or precipitation, 

the physician must provide a rationalized medical opinion that differentiates between the effects 

of the work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition.10

Pursuant to OWCP’s procedures, no development of a claim is necessary where the 

condition reported is a minor one which can be identified on visual inspection by a lay person (e.g.,

 

4 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 

2020); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 

2016); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8 S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 2019); Robert G. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

9 T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 

2020); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

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

R.D., Docket No. 18-1551 (issued March 1, 2019).
6

burn, laceration, insect sting or animal bite).11 No medical report is required to establish a minor

condition such as a laceration.12

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a lumbar contusion 

causally related to the accepted January 5, 2017 employment incident.

On January 5, 2017 the date of the accepted employment incident, appellant received 

treatment in the emergency room by Dr. Sherwin and Mr. MacKnick for, among other things, a 

lumbar contusion as a result of a heavy door falling on appellant’s back while in the performance 

of duty. The diagnosis of lumbar contusion was visible on inspection and consistent with the locus 

and mechanism of injury. As such, the Board finds that this evidence is sufficient to establish that 

appellant sustained a lumbar contusion causally related to the accepted February 21, 2019 

employment incident.13 Upon return of the case record OWCP shall make payment and/or 

reimbursement of medical expenses and wage-loss compensation, if any, with regard to the 

accepted lumbar contusion.

The Board further finds that the case is not in posture for decision regarding whether the 

diagnosed conditions of other intervertebral disc displacement lumbosacral region, disc 

disorder/lumbar spine radiculopathy, and other intervertebral disc degeneration in the lumbar spine 

were causally related to or aggravated by the accepted January 5, 2017 employment incident.

Dr. Powell provided a proper factual and medical history of injury. In his reports dated

March 6 and September 12, 2019, he opined that the impact of the 100-pound work vehicle door 

on appellant’s back on January 5, 2017 caused the acceleration of degenerative changes at L5-S1 

and permanent exacerbation and aggravation of osteoarthritis in his lumbar spine. Dr. Powell

opined that as the door impacted appellant’s lumbar spine it caused the previously surgically 

repaired disc at L4-5 to herniate and caused a moderate diffuse disc bulging at L5-S1. He further 

explained that the jelly like nucleus disc, which moved within the outer annulus according to the 

pressures of the spine, was displaced during the impact causing the protrusion and bulging. 

Dr. Powell indicated that the impact of the 100-pound door on appellant’s lumbar spine was in 

excess of a tolerable force which caused the L4-5 and L5-S1 discs to protrude and bulge, causing 

a decreased amount of space for the nerve to exit and causing nerve impingement and 

radiculopathy. He concluded that appellant sustained a lumbar disc herniation at L4-5, protrusion 

of L5-S1 of the central disc displacing the right S1 nerve root, acceleration of degenerative changes 

at L5-S1, and permanent aggravation of lumbosacral osteoarthritis as a direct result of the workrelated injury when the back door cable spring broke and the 100-pound door fell on appellant’s

back while performing his work duties. 

 

11 See id. at Chapter 2.800.6(a) (June 2011).

12 Id.; see S.H., Docket No. 20-0113 (issued June 24, 2020) (the Board accepted a contusion as causally related to 

the accepted employment incident).

13 Supra notes 11 and 12.
7

The Board finds that the reports from Dr. Powell are sufficient to require further 

development of the medical evidence. Dr. Powell is a Board-certified physician who is qualified 

in his field of medicine to render rationalized opinions on the issue of causal relationship and he 

provided a comprehensive understanding of the medical record and case history. His report 

suggests a pathophysiological explanation as to how a 100-pound LLV door, which fell on 

appellant’s back while at work resulted in a diagnosis of other intervertebral disc displacement of 

the lumbosacral region, disc disorder/lumbar spine radiculopathy, and other intervertebral disc 

degeneration in the lumbar spine. The Board has long held that it is unnecessary that the evidence 

of record in a case be so conclusive as to suggest causal connection beyond all possible doubt. 

Rather, the evidence required is only that necessary to convince the adjudicator that the conclusion 

drawn is rational, sound, and logical.14 Accordingly, Dr. Powell’s March 6 and September 12, 

2019 medical opinion is well-rationalized and is therefore sufficient to require further development 

of appellant’s claim.15

It is well established that proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and, while 

appellant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares 

responsibility in the development of the evidence.16 OWCP has an obligation to see that justice is 

done.17

On remand OWCP shall refer appellant to an appropriate specialist, along with the case 

record and a statement of accepted facts. Its referral physician shall provide a well-rationalized 

opinion as to whether his diagnosed conditions of other intervertebral disc displacement 

lumbosacral region, disc disorder/lumbar spine radiculopathy, and other intervertebral disc 

degeneration in the lumbar spine were causally related to or aggravated by the accepted January 5, 

2017 employment incident. After such further development of the case record as OWCP deems 

necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

 

14 W.M., Docket No. 17-1244 (issued November 7, 2017); E.M., Docket No. 11-1106 (issued December 28, 

2011); Kenneth J. Deerman, 34 ECAB 641, 645 (1983) and cases cited therein.

15 J.H., supra note 5; D.S., Docket No. 17-1359 (issued May 3, 2019); X.V., Docket No. 18-1360 (issued April 12, 

2019); C.M., Docket No. 17-1977 (issued January 29, 2019); William J. Cantrell, 34 ECAB 1223 (1983).

16 See id. See also A.P., Docket No. 17-0813 (issued January 3, 2018); Jimmy A. Hammons, 51 ECAB 219, 

223 (1999).

17 See B.C., Docket No. 15-1853 (issued January 19, 2016); E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 

2010); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).
8

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 12, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed in part and set aside in part. The case is remanded 

for further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: August 27, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board