United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Chanute, KS, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1729

Issued: April 3, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Terry Smedley, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 13, 2018 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from a 

June 28, 2018 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 her burden of proof to establish that her lumbar

conditions were causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 9, 2017 appellant, then a 28-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained back and leg pain due to the performance of her 

city carrier duties. She indicated that she first became aware of the condition on April 14, 2017

and its relationship to her federal employment on May 30, 2017. On the reverse side of the claim 

form, the employing establishment noted that appellant stopped work on June 5, 2017, returned to 

work on June 7, 2017, and reported her condition to her supervisor on June 9, 2017. 

In an accompanying statement dated June 9, 2017, appellant related that her regular job 

duties consisted of lifting tubs of mail and casing magazines, newspapers, and letters, which 

required that she twist, turn, bend, reach, pull, and push continuously. She related that while on 

her route she carried a 35-pound bag full of mail on her shoulder, ascended and descended stairs, 

bent, turned, twisted, and kneeled while distributing mail. Appellant noted that she started to have

back and hip pain around April 14, 2017, and sought medical treatment two weeks later. 

In a letter dated May 30, 2017, Dr. Aaron M. McGuire, an orthopedic surgeon, related that 

he evaluated appellant in regard to lumbar spine conditionsthat she sustained due to her cumulative 

work duties. Based on x-ray evaluation, he diagnosed cumulative trauma to the sacrum/lumbar 

spine due to low back syndrome, resulting in anatomical abnormalities due to sacroiliac sprain, 

with radiculopathy, and muscle spasms. Dr. McGuire opined that appellant sustained lumbar spine

injury as the result of her cumulative employment-related duties that she was partially disabled,

but could return to work with restrictions. 

In a development letter dated July 6, 2017, OWCP informed the employing establishment 

of appellant’s claim. It requested that it submit comments from a knowledgeable supervisor 

regarding the accuracy of appellant’s statement, a description of her tasks that required physical 

exertion, and a copy of her position description. 

In a separate development letter dated July 7, 2017, OWCP advised appellant that further 

evidence was necessary to establish her claim. It requested that she submit a comprehensive 

narrative medical report which provided rationalized medical explanation as to how the diagnosed 

medical conditions were causally related to the alleged factors of her federal employment. OWCP 

afforded appellant 30 days to submit the requested evidence. 

In a statement dated August 9, 2017, the employing establishment challenged appellant’s 

allegations. It noted that on April 21, 2017 she first informed her supervisor of her condition. The 

employing establishment related that appellant had not worked from April 21 to 27, 2017 and 

returned to work with restrictions on April 27, 2017. Appellant failed to report to work on June 6, 

2017 and, at that time, she reported that her condition was employment related. OWCP related 

that she had been observed by other employees, since reporting her condition, engaging in 

activities outside the scope of her work restrictions with no apparent problems. 
3

In progress reports dated June 6 and 26, and July 24, 2017, Dr. McGuire examined 

appellant and indicated that there were no new findings or changes in her diagnosed conditions. 

He indicated that she continued to have localized pain, but was able to continue working within 

her restrictions. 

By decision dated October 25, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that the 

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

conditions and the accepted factors of her federal employment. OWCP noted that Dr. McGuire 

had not provided rationalized medical opinion evidence explaining how appellant’s employment 

duties caused or aggravated a specific diagnosis. 

On November 14, 2017 appellant requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative. The oral hearing was held telephonically on May 23, 2018. 

By decision dated June 28, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the October 25, 

2017 decision. He found that appellant had not met her burden of proof to establish causal 

relationship between the accepted factors of her federal employment and her diagnosed lower back 

conditions. 

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,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

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit: (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 diagnosed condition is causally 

related to the identified employment factors.6

 

3 S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

4

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 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).

6 See M.B., Docket No. 17-1999 (issued November 13, 2018); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
4

Causal relationship is a medical question, which generally requires rationalized medical 

opinion evidence to resolve the issue.7 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal 

relationship between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors must be 

based on a complete factual and medical background.8 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must 

be expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by 

medical rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and 

appellant’s specific employment factors.9

ANALYSIS

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

conditions were causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. 

In a report dated May 30, 2017, Dr. McGuire diagnosed cumulative trauma to appellant’s 

sacrum/lumbar spine resulting in sacroiliac sprain, with radiculopathy, muscle spasms, and low 

back syndrome. He opined that her conditions were causally related to her occupational trauma. 

While Dr. McGuire noted an employment-related injury and diagnosed multiple lumbar 

conditions, his opinion was merely conclusory. The Board has held that a medical opinion is of 

limited probative value if it is speculative and conclusory in nature.10 A medical opinion must 

provide an explanation as to how the specific employment factors physiologically caused or 

aggravated the diagnosed conditions.11 Without medical reasoning explaining how the accepted 

employment factors caused or contributed to the diagnosed conditions, Dr. McGuire’s report is 

insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.12

Appellant submitted multiple additional progress reports from Dr. McGuire dated June 6 

and 26, and July 24, 2018. However, in these reports Dr. McGuire did not provide an opinion as 

to the cause of her diagnosed conditions. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not 

offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the 

issue of causal relationship.13 These reports, therefore, are insufficient to establish appellant’s 

claim. 

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence to establish a medical 

condition causally related to the accepted employment factors, the Board finds that she has not met 

her burden of proof to establish her claim.

 

7 B.H., Docket No. 18-1219 (issued January 25, 2019); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

8 See M.B., supra note 6.

9 L.G., Docket No. 18-0321 (issued October 25, 2018).

10 See M.W., Docket No. 17-0186 (issued March 13, 2018).

11 See V.T., Docket No. 18-0881 (issued November 19, 2018).

12 See R.T., Docket No. 17-2019 (issued August 24, 2018).

13 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
5

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 that her back 

conditions were causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 28, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 3, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board