United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Brooklyn, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0734

Issued: November 13, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Stephen Larkin, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 17, 2020 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from a 

January 9, 2020 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.

3

 

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.

3 The Board notes that, following the January 9, 2020 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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 a medical condition 

causally related to the accepted July 10, 2018 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 11, 2018 appellant, then a 23-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 10, 2018 she sustained an injury to her chest and back 

when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving her postal vehicle in the 

performance of duty. She stopped work on July 10, 2018.

On July 10, 2018 appellant was treated in the emergency room by Yaakov Levenshetyn, a 

physician assistant, who diagnosed motor vehicle accident and provided discharge instructions.

In a statement dated July 11, 2018, appellant noted that on July 10, 2018 she was driving 

back to the station to clock out when she was struck from behind by a car driving at full speed 

causing her to hit the vehicle in front of her.

In a July 11, 2018 authorization for examination and/or treatment (Form CA-16), the 

employing establishment authorized appellant to seek medical care with Dr. Jeff Mollins, a 

chiropractor. In an attending physician’s report, Part B of the Form CA-16, dated July 13, 2018,

Dr. Mollins advised that appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in her postal truck on 

July 10, 2018. He diagnosed lumbosacral syndrome, lumbar strain/sprain, and lumbar pain. 

Dr. Mollins noted that appellant was totally disabled from work beginning July 10, 2018. 

On July 12, 2018 Dr. Mollins treated appellant for injuries sustained in a work-related 

accident on July 10, 2018, and noted that she was tentatively totally disabled until 

August 13, 2018. In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated July 12, 2018, he again indicated 

that she could not resume work.

In a July 16, 2018 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of her 

claim, noting that no diagnosis of any condition resulting from her injury had been received. It 

advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and attached a questionnaire for 

her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the requested evidence. No 

additional evidence was received.

By decision dated August 16, 2018, OWCP accepted that the employment incident 

occurred, as alleged, but denied the claim finding that the medical evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted employment incident.

Thus, it concluded that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by 

FECA.

OWCP subsequently received additional evidence. It subsequently received an unsigned 

report/log listing the multiple occasions that appellant was treated by Dr. Mollins. OWCP noted 

diagnoses of lumbosacral radicular syndrome, sprain of the other parts of the lumbar spine, low 

back pain, and thoracic sprain/strain. 
3

In an undated report, Dr. Mollins diagnosed lumbosacral radiculopathy, sprain of the other 

parts of the lumbar spine, low back pain, and thoracic sprain/strain. Appellant reported being 

involved in a motor vehicle accident at work on July 10, 2018 and sustaining injuries to her back. 

He checked a box marked “Yes,” that the incident appellant described was the competent medical 

cause of the injury/illness. Dr. Mollins, in a September 7, 2018 report, noted that he was treating 

appellant for injuries sustained in a July 10, 2018 work-related accident and held appellant off

work until October 8, 2018. In a duty status report (Form CA-17) of even date, Dr. Mollins noted 

clinical findings of increased low back pain and again advised that appellant was unable to resume 

work.

An August 15, 2018 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the lumbar spine revealed 

posterior disc bulges at L4-L5 and L5-S1.

On August 22, 2018 appellant underwent an electromyogram (EMG) performed by

Dr. R.C. Krishna, a Board-certified neurologist, which revealed evidence of bilateral L5-S1 lumbar 

radiculopathy and right peroneal axonal neuropathy.

In reports dated September 17 and October 1, 2018, Dr. Krishna treated appellant for 

injuries sustained to her chest and back after a work-related motor vehicle accident in which she 

was hit from behind by another vehicle. He opined that based on appellant’s history and a physical 

examination, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, her physical injuries were the competent 

provocative cause of her impairment and disability causally related to the accident noted above. 

In a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) dated October 29, 2018, Dr. Krishna noted that appellant 

demonstrated functional capacity below average for her age and gender. Appellant’s work

capability was less than sedentary work, but she demonstrated rehabilitation potential.

In a letter dated August 23, 2018, appellant requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. The hearing was held on 

January 16, 2019.

By decision dated February 25, 2019, the Branch of Hearings and Review accepted that 

appellant had established that the July 10, 2018 employment incident occurred as alleged and that 

the medical evidence of record established a diagnosed condition. However, it affirmed the denial 

of the claim as the medical evidence submitted was insufficient to establish causal relationship 

between her diagnosed conditions and the accepted July 10, 2018 employment incident.

On March 29, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration.

In support thereof OWCP received reports dated January 23 and March 4, 2019, wherein

Dr. Krishna noted his treatment of appellant and diagnoses of thoracic sprain/strain, lumbar 

sprain/strain, and lumbar radiculitis. Dr. Krishna opined that, based on appellant’s history and 

physical examination, that her physical injuries were the competent provocative cause of her 

impairment and disability and was causally related to the work-related motor vehicle accident.

In a May 13, 2019 report, Dr. Krishna noted that he performed an FCE and diagnosed 

lumbar radiculopathy, right shoulder derangement, and concussion. He noted that appellant was 

capable of sedentary work with restrictions.
4

By decision dated August 2, 2019, OWCP denied modification of the February 25, 2019

decision.

On October 17, 2019 appellant, through her representative, requested reconsideration. In 

support thereof, appellant continued to submit additional evidence, including chiropractic 

treatment notes from Dr. Mollins dated January 3 to November 27, 2019.

Also received was a September 9, 2019 report from Dr. Krishna, who opined that, based 

on appellant’s history and physical examination, her physical injuries were the competent 

provocative cause of her impairment and disability and was causally related to the July 10, 2018

accident.

In an October 2, 2019 report, Dr. Krishna explained that when appellant’s truck was hit 

from behind by another vehicle she sustained a thoracic sprain/strain. He defined a strain as a 

muscle that is overstretched to the point where the muscle fiber fails or tears and a sprain is when 

a ligament is overstretched to where the ligament fails or tears. Dr. Krishna indicated that both a

sprain and strain can result from sudden injury, which was consistent with appellant’s truck being 

hit from behind by another vehicle. He further noted that a lumbar sprain was caused when 

ligaments (the tough bands of tissue that hold bones together) are torn from their attachment, which 

can result from a sudden injury and again was consistent with appellant’s truck being hit from 

behind by another vehicle. Dr. Krishna explained that sudden injury that occurs with a car accident 

can cause radiculitis or inflammation of the spinal nerve root. He opined that appellant developed 

lumbar radiculitis from her vehicle being hit from behind, which was supported by the EMG study 

of August 22, 2018 and MRI scan findings on August 15, 2018, which revealed inflammation of 

the spinal nerve. Dr. Krishna opined that these findings were specifically due to the motor vehicle 

accident. On October 2, 2019 he again performed an FCE and diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy, 

right shoulder derangement, and concussion. He noted that appellant demonstrated the ability to 

perform sedentary work with restrictions.

By decision dated January 9, 2020, OWCP denied modification of the August 2, 2019

decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation of FECA,

5

that 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 

 

4

Id. 

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

153 (1989).
5

employment injury.6 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.7

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.8 

Generally, fact of injury consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with 

one another. The first component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment 

incident that allegedly occurred.9 The second component is whether the employment incident 

caused a personal injury.10 An employee may establish that an injury occurred in the performance 

of duty as alleged, but fail to establish that the disability or specific condition for which 

compensation is being claimed is causally related to the employment incident.11

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.12 A physician’s opinion on whether there is a causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the accepted employment incident must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background.13 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 the 

specific employment incident.14

ANALYSIS

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

In his October 2, 2019 report, Dr. Krishna explained that appellant sustained a thoracic 

sprain/strain when her truck was hit from behind by another vehicle. He defined a strain as a 

muscle that is overstretched to the point where the muscle fiber fails or tears and defined a sprain 

as a ligament that is overstretched to the point where the ligament fails or tears. Dr. Krishna 

indicated that both a sprain and strain can result from sudden injury, which was consistent with 

the effects of appellant’s truck being hit from behind by another vehicle. Similarly, he noted that 

a lumbar sprain was caused when ligaments (the tough bands of tissue that hold bones together) 

are torn from their attachment, which can result from a sudden injury which was also consistent 

with the effects of appellant’s truck being hit from behind by another vehicle. Dr. Krishna also 

 

6

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

7 K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016).

8 D.B., Docket No. 18-1348 (issued January 4, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008).

9 D.S., Docket No. 17-1422 (issued November 9, 2017); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

10 B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

11 Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997).

12 T.H., supra note 8; Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

13 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018).

14 Id.; Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
6

noted that appellant developed lumbar radiculitis (inflammation of the spinal nerve root) from her 

vehicle being hit from behind, which was supported by the EMG findings of August 22, 2018 and 

MRI scan findings on August 15, 2018 that revealed inflammation of the spinal nerve. He opined 

that these findings were specifically due to the motor vehicle accident. 

The Board finds that Dr. Krishna’s October 2, 2019 report is sufficient to require further 

development of the medical evidence. The physician is a Board-certified neurologist and 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. 

Dr. Krishna, in his report, provides a pathophysiological explanation as to how being in a vehicle 

that is suddenly struck from behind by another vehicle resulted in a diagnosis of a thoracic 

sprain/strain, lumbar sprain/stain, and lumbar radiculitis. 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.15 Accordingly, Dr. Krishna’s 

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

appellant’s claim.16

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.17 OWCP has an obligation to see that justice is 

done.18

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

record and a statement of accepted facts, for an examination and a rationalized medical opinion as 

to whether the accepted employment incident either caused or aggravated her diagnosed 

conditions.19 If the second opinion disagrees with the explanations provided by Dr. Krishna, he 

or she must provide a fully-rationalized explanation explaining why the accepted employment 

incident was insufficient to have caused or aggravated her diagnosed conditions of thoracic 

sprain/strain, lumbar sprain/stain, and lumbar radiculitis. After this and other such further 

development of the case record as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

 

15 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.

16 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).

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

223 (1999).

18 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).

19 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013); 

C.C., Docket No. 19-1631 (issued February 12, 2020).
7

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.20

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 9, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: November 13, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

20 The Board notes that the employing establishment issued a Form CA-16. A completed Form CA-16 authorization 

may constitute a contract for payment of medical expenses to a medical facility or physician, when properly executed. 

The form creates a contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee directly, to pay for the cost of the 

examination or treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim. The period for which treatment is authorized by 

a Form CA-16 is limited to 60 days from the date of issuance, unless terminated earlier by OWCP. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.300(c); J.G., Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 2018); Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).