United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

New Orleans, LA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1796

Issued: March 15, 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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 24, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 17, 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish muscle tension 

headaches and cervical and trapezius muscle spasms causally related to accepted factors of her 

federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 12, 2018 appellant, then a 52-year-old maintenance office support clerk, filed an

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2), alleging that due to her noisy workstation she developed 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

severe, throbbing recurring pain on one side of her head radiating down her neck and shoulders. 

She further alleged that as a result of “extreme, constant loud jagged noise” she experienced intense 

headaches with ringing and mild-to-moderate pain in both ears due to factors of her federal 

employment. Appellant indicated that she first became aware of her medical condition on June 28, 

2018 and first realized that it was caused or aggravated by her federal employment on 

June 29, 2018. She stopped work on June 28, 2018 and then returned to work on July 6, 2018.

In a routing slip dated June 29, 2018, appellant indicated that her duty station did not 

qualify for a hearing conservation program because several machines had been removed post

Hurricane Katrina and the last documented sound-level survey found that no employees were being 

exposed to sound levels greater than 85 decibels, on the A scale. Since that time, and as recent as 

June 2018, she stated that a Delivery Bar Code Sorter (DBCS) machine, sometimes referred to as 

a “jogger,” had been installed adjacent to the maintenance parts room, which was the office where 

she was assigned. When in operation, appellant described the DBCS machine as giving off “an 

extreme arduous, deafening, continuous sound” when in motion. She stated that she was unable 

to focus due to the noise and suffered continuous headaches. Appellant further indicated that she 

was unable to perform her usual duties, which included oral communications throughout her tour 

of duty, when the machine was in operation due to the noise.

By development letter dated July 17, 2018, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical 

evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 

days to respond.

Appellant subsequently submitted two accident reports indicating that she had complained 

of loud noise from a #15 DBCS jogger module machine that was causing her to experience

headaches. She first notified the employing establishment of her injury on June 28, 2018.

Appellant further submitted three reports dated June 29, 2018, including two form reports, 

a duty status report and an attending physician’s report, Form CA-17 and Form CA-20

respectively, from Dr. Susan L. Vaught, an internist. Dr. Vaught diagnosed history of high 

cholesterol, muscle tension headache, muscle spasms of the neck, and trapezius muscle spasm and 

asserted that appellant had been exposed to a new instrument at work with loud vibratory noise, 

which was located on the other side of a partition behind her desk. She opined that, since the

machine had been moved three days prior, appellant had right-sided headaches and poor 

concentration. Although appellant took precautions to protect her hearing while preforming her 

job, it did not block out the noise. Dr. Vaught also found that appellant’s head pain had radiated 

to her right posterior neck and upper right shoulder. In an attending physician’s report (Form CA20), Dr. Vaught explained that “repeated loud (above vocal baseline) noise can and often trigger 

muscle spasms and tension headaches.” She advised that appellant was totally disabled from work 

until relieved from the increased noise, and recommended better hearing protection or moving 

away from the new machine noise.

In a report dated July 9, 2018, Dr. Devra Sirot, a family medicine specialist, noted that 

appellant was seen for a follow-up examination of her muscle tension headache and reported that 

she felt much better and was getting better earplugs for work to block out the noise.
3

A statement from the employing establishment dated August 1, 2018 confirmed that 

appellant’s duty station was not required to have a hearing conservation program. It acknowledged 

that the machine was unusually noisy, but three different employees simultaneously used their 

smartphone applications and failed to register a reading of 90 decibels (on the A scale) or greater, 

at the machine. The employing establishment noted that appellant’s office was no less than 15 

feet from the machine’s location and was separated by a wall of 1/2-inch plywood. The jogger 

was only used while jogging mail, which meant that the noise was not present for a period of time 

greater than 30 minutes, continuously.

Appellant subsequently submitted an August 3, 2018 narrative statement reiterating that 

the rattling, vibrating noise coming from DBCS #15 was adjacent to her office and did not have a 

ceiling; therefore, she was exposed to the sound all day. She further indicated that her office was 

an open area on the workroom floor. Appellant asserted that the machine ran every day anywhere 

from 8 to 16 hours per day. She also submitted a position description in support of her claim.

By decision dated August 17, 2018, OWCP found that appellant had established that she 

was exposed to loud noise in the performance of duty, but denied the claim because the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish a causal relationship between her diagnosed 

conditions and the accepted employment exposure.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

A claimant seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the essential 

elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, 

including the fact that the individual is an employee of the United States within the meaning of 

FECA, that the claim was filed within the applicable time limitation of FECA, that an injury was 

sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any specific condition or disability for 

which compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury.2 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.3

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

disease claim, an employee must submit 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 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.4

 

2 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996).

3 A.D., Docket No. 17-1855 (issued February 26, 2018); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 357 (2001).

4 D.R., Docket No. 09-1723 (issued May 20, 2010). See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Ruby I. 

Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).
4

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

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.5 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.6 

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.7

ANALYSIS

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

headaches and cervical and trapezius muscle spasms causally related to the accepted factors of 

federal employment. 

Appellant identified the factors of employment that she believed caused her conditions

which included constant exposure to noise from a DBCS machine/jogger at work, which OWCP 

accepted as factual. However, in order to establish that she sustained an employment-related 

injury, she must also submit rationalized medical evidence which explains how her medical 

conditions were caused or aggravated by the implicated employment factors.8

Appellant returned to Dr. Sirot for a follow-up examination of her muscle tension headache 

on July 9, 2018. He reported that she felt much better and was getting better earplugs for work to 

block out the noise. 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.9 Thus, this evidence is insufficient to establish causal relationship between 

appellant’s federal employment duties and her diagnosed conditions.

In her reports, Dr. Vaught diagnosed muscle tension headache, muscles spasms of neck, 

and trapezius muscle spasm and asserted that appellant had been exposed to a new instrument at 

work with loud vibratory noise, which was located on the other side of a partition behind her desk. 

She opined that since the machine had been moved three days prior, appellant had right-sided 

headaches and poor concentration. Dr. Vaught also found that appellant’s pain had radiated to her 

right posterior neck and upper right shoulder. In her attending physician’s report (Form CA-20),

she explained that “repeated loud (above vocal baseline) noise can and often triggers muscle 

spasms and tension headaches.” The Board finds that Dr. Vaught’s opinion regarding the cause 

 

5 G.N., Docket No. 18-0403 (issued September 13, 2018); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

6 K.V., Docket No. 18-0723 (issued November 9, 2018); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 

45 ECAB 365 (1994).

7 Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997).

8 A.C., Docket No. 08-1453 (issued November 18, 2008).

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

of appellant’s muscle spasms and headaches is speculative and equivocal in nature.10 Dr. Vaught 

failed to provide sufficient medical rationale explaining how being exposed to noise from a DBCS 

machine/jogger at work either caused or contributed to appellant’s diagnosed conditions. Her

opinion was based, in part, on temporal correlation. The Board has held that 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 a causal relationship.11 Dr. Vaught did not otherwise sufficiently explain the reasons 

why diagnostic testing and examination findings led her to conclude that appellant’s employment 

factors caused or contributed to the diagnosed conditions. For these reasons, the Board finds that 

the reports from Dr. Vaught are also insufficient to establish that appellant sustained an 

employment-related injury.

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence sufficient to support her 

claim that she sustained an injury causally related to the accepted employment factors, she has not 

met her burden of proof to establish her claim.

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 muscle tension 

headaches and cervical and trapezius muscle spasms causally related to the accepted factors of her 

federal employment.

 

10 Medical opinions that are speculative or equivocal in character are of little probative value. See Kathy A. Kelley, 

55 ECAB 206 (2004).

11 E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 2010).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 17, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 15, 2019

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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