United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

W.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISONS, Tucson, AZ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0013

Issued: April 11, 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 October 1, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 26, 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.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a back condition

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

 

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 9, 2018 appellant, then a 45-year-old correctional systems officer, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he injured his back when sorting, inspecting, and 

moving mail on January 10, 2018 while in the performance of duty. Specifically, he indicated that 

he injured himself while picking up a heavy mail bin, turning to avoid tripping over another mail 

bin, and stepping and twisting to the left in the same motion. On the reverse side of the claim form 

the employing establishment indicated that appellant was injured in the performance of duty and 

that he stopped work on January 11, 2018.

In a work excuse note dated January 10, 2018, Dr. James E. Tooley, Board-certified in 

family medicine and osteopathic manipulative therapy, indicated that appellant was able to return 

to work on January 13, 2018. In a separate work excuse note dated January 16, 2018, he noted 

that appellant could return to work on January 18, 2018 with restrictions.

In a report dated February 6, 2018, Dr. Jeffrey Baron, Board-certified in orthopedic 

surgery, diagnosed low back pain and lumbar radiculopathy. He referred appellant for physical 

therapy.

In a development letter dated March 21, 2018, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish his claim. It requested additional medical evidence as the 

evidence of record did not provide a diagnosis of a medical condition nor a physician’s opinion as 

to how the alleged incident resulted in a diagnosed condition. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days 

to submit the requested evidence. No additional evidence was submitted. 

By decision dated April 26, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that his condition was causally related to the 

accepted January 10, 2018 employment incident.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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, that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty, as alleged, and that any 

disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are 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

In order to determine whether an employee actually sustained an injury in the performance 

of duty, OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Generally, 

fact of injury consists of two components which must be considered in conjunction with one 

 

3 Supra note 1.

4 D.K., Docket No. 17-1186 (issued June 11, 2018); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001).

5 T.C., Docket No. 18-1498 (issued February 13, 2019); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).
3

another. The first component to be established is that the employee actually experienced 

the employment incident which is alleged to have occurred.6 The second component is whether 

the employment incident caused a personal injury and generally can be established only by medical 

evidence.

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is generally required to establish causal 

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

background, 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 claimant.7

ANALYSIS

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

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

Dr. Tooley initially treated appellant following the January 10, 2018 employment incident. 

While he provided medical restrictions, he offered no history of the employment incident, no 

diagnosis, and no offered opinion regarding causal relationship. 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.8 As Dr. Tooley’s reports are deficient in this 

regard, his reports are of no probative value.

Appellant submitted a report from Dr. Baron dated February 6, 2018 in which he diagnosed 

low back pain and lumbar radiculopathy. The Board notes that the assessment of pain is not 

considered a diagnosis as it merely refers to symptoms of the underlying condition.9 While

Dr. Baron also diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy, he offered no opinion regarding the cause of this 

diagnosis. 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.10 To 

be of probative medical value, a medical opinion must explain how physiologically the movements 

involved in the employment incident caused or contributed to the diagnosed conditions.11

 

6 D.K., supra note 4; Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

7 T.C., supra note 5; I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).

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

9 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018). The Board has consistently held that pain is a symptom, 

rather than a compensable medical diagnosis. See P.S., Docket No. 12-1601 (issued January 2, 2013); C.F., Docket 

No. 08-1102 (issued October 10, 2008).

10 C.C., Docket No. 17-1841 (issued December 6, 2018); see L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); 

D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

11 See K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019).
4

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing that his 

diagnosed medical condition was causally related to the accepted employment incident, the Board 

finds that he has not met his burden of proof to establish his 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 his burden of proof to establish a back condition

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 26, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 11, 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