United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.L., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

Kansas City, MO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1106

Issued: October 18, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 April 16, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 3, 2019 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.2

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. 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 diagnosed medical

condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 25, 2018 appellant, then a 48-year-old file clerk, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained severe lower back pain caused by factors of her 

federal employment. She explained that, over time, bending over to file documents in boxes 

caused “severe issues” in her lower back. Appellant noted that she had not filed her claim within 

30 days as she was waiting for her doctor to opine whether her lower back issues were being caused 

by the lifting, bending, stooping, and pushing of heavy carts she performed at work. She noted 

that she first became aware of her claimed condition on March 5, 2018 and realized her condition 

was caused or aggravated by factors of her federal employment on March 9, 2018. On the reverse 

side of the claim form, the employing establishment noted that appellant was laid off on August 31, 

2018 before accepting a different position on October 15, 2018. Appellant’s supervisor indicated 

that she had no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claimed injury.

In a development letter dated November 5, 2018, OWCP advised appellant that it required 

additional factual and medical evidence to determine whether she was eligible for FECA benefits. 

It requested that she respond to its questionnaire and submit medical evidence which contained a 

firm diagnosis and a physician’s opinion supported by a medical explanation as to how work 

activities in her federal employment caused, contributed to, or aggravated her medical condition. 

OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. 

In a separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested that the employing 

establishment provide additional information regarding appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

including comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding the accuracy of appellant’s 

statements, and a copy of appellant’s position description and physical requirements of her

position. It afforded the employing establishment 30 days to respond.

In a November 21, 2018 response to OWCP’s questionnaire, appellant described her duties

as constantly lifting of heavy objects, bending, stooping and pushing heavy carts, as well as 

extensive standing and walking for long periods of time. She performed these duties five days a 

week for seven and half hours a day. Appellant explained that she first noticed her condition in 

March 2018 and that her symptoms of back pain and stiffness progressively got worse while 

working with the files. She used pain medication, therapy, and massages to help her with her 

condition.

By decision dated January 3, 2019, OWCP accepted that the alleged employment factors 

occurred while in the performance of duty, as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s claim, 

finding that she had not submitted probative medical evidence establishing a medical diagnosis 

causally related to the accepted employment factors. OWCP concluded, therefore, that the 

requirements had not been met to establish that she sustained an injury as defined by FECA.
3

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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation,3that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any 

disability or specific 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 on 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 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 claimant.6

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical 

opinion evidence. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background of the employee, must be one of reasonable 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.7

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

Appellant alleged that she developed a lower back condition due to constant lifting, 

bending, stooping and pushing of heavy carts, as well as extensive standing and walking for long 

periods of time. OWCP accepted that appellant’s position required the above-mentioned duties. 

However, appellant did not submit medical evidence diagnosing a medical condition and which 

offered an opinion regarding causal relationship. OWCP advised appellant that further medical 

evidence was necessary to establish her claim. Appellant only submitted a November 27, 2018 

response to OWCP’s questionnaire which is of no probative value as it does not constitute medical 

evidence. She has the burden of proof to submit rationalized medical evidence establishing that a 

 

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

S.O., Docket No. 18-1559 (issued February 21, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

6 K.C., Docket No. 18-1330 (issued March 11, 2019).

7 P.S., Docket No. 18-1222 (issued January 8, 2019).
4

diagnosed medical condition was causally related to the accepted employment factors.

8

Accordingly, as appellant failed to submit medical evidence identifying a medical condition in 

relation to the requirements of her position, she has not met her burden of proof to establish her 

claim.9

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 a diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 3, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 18, 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

 

8

See R.C., Docket No. 18-1639 (issued February 26, 2019).

9

See B.G., Docket No. 18-0784 (issued November 9, 2018).