United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Los Angeles, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1329

Issued: June 3, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 8, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 19, 2020 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 his burden of proof to establish a medical condition 

causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.

2

 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

in the Board’s prior order are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as follows.

On February 12, 2019 appellant, then a 48-year-old customer care agent, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he experienced lower left side back pain due 

to factors of his federal employment, including sitting for 8 to 10 hours a day. He related that 

when he went on vacation his pain dissipated. Appellant noted that in previous jobs where he did 

not sit down, he did not experience pain. On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing 

establishment controverted appellant’s claim, noting that appellant had a second job.

In a February 12, 2019 narrative statement, appellant related that in October 2018, two 

weeks after he started working at the employing establishment, he felt a sensation in the left side 

of the lower back and numbness radiating down his leg. He again asserted that he was not used to 

sitting while working and while his pain dissipated during vacation, it returned when he returned 

to work. Appellant noted that he tried to walk outside during his breaks and at lunch, which 

reduced his pain.

In a development letter dated February 28, 2019, OWCP informed appellant that additional 

evidence was needed to establish his claim. It advised him of the type of medical evidence 

necessary to establish his claim and afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

A November 21, 2018 medical report containing an illegible signature indicated that 

appellant complained of low back and left buttocks pain that radiated down into his calf. A 

physical examination was conducted and appellant’s diagnosis was listed as sciatica.

OWCP received December 20, 2018 and February 11, 2019 progress notes, which

contained illegible signatures.

By decision dated April 3, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that a medical condition was 

diagnosed in connection to the accepted factors of his federal employment. It concluded, therefore, 

that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

OWCP thereafter received a November 21, 2018 health questionnaire with an illegible 

signature.

On April 16, 2019 appellant filed an appeal with the Board. By order dated January 2, 

2020, the Board set aside OWCP’s April 3, 2019 decision denying appellant’s claim, finding that

OWCP failed to review all of the evidence of record submitted at the time of the April 3, 2019 

decision. The Board remanded the case to OWCP for further development, to be followed by a 

de novo decision.

3

 

2 Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 19-1080 (issued January 2, 2020).

3

Id. 
3

Following the Board’s remand order, by decision dated March 19, 2020, OWCP again 

denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient 

to establish that a medical condition was diagnosed in connection to his accepted factors of federal 

employment. It concluded that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined 

by FECA.

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

disease claim, a claimant 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 identified employment factors.7

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.8 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factor(s) must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background.9 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 factor(s).10

 

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

153 (1989).

5

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

ECAB 312 (1988).

6 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).

7 R.G., Docket No. 19-0233 (issued July 16, 2019). 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).

8 T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

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

10 Id.; Victor J. Woodhams, supra note 7.
4

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to his accepted factors of federal employment. 

All of the medical evidence submitted, including the November 21, 2018 reports, the 

December 20, 2018 and February 11, 2019 progress reports, and the February 11, 2019 

prescription, contained an illegible signature. The Board has held that reports that are unsigned or 

bear an illegible signature lack proper identification and cannot be considered probative medical 

evidence, as the author cannot be identified as a physician.11 Therefore, these documents have no 

probative value and are insufficient to establish the claim.

Accordingly, as there is no rationalized medical evidence of record establishing a 

diagnosed medical condition causally related to appellant’s accepted factors of 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 a diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to his accepted factors of federal employment. 

 

11 R.L., Docket No. 20-0284 (issued June 30, 2020); M.A., Docket No. 19-1551 (issued April 30, 2020); T.O., 

Docket No. 19-1291 (issued December 11, 2019).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 19, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 3, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board