United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

Y.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, TROY MADISON 

HEIGHTS CARRIER ANNEX POST OFFICE, 

Troy, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1025

Issued: November 25, 2020

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 April 13, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 25, 2020 merit decision 

and a March 31, 2020 nonmerit 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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a medical

condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment; and (2) whether 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the March 31, 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

OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for a review of the written record pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8124(b) as untimely filed.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 7, 2020 appellant, then a 48-year-old customer care agent, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed lower back disc herniation with mild 

stenosis and an annular tear and disc herniation on the left side due to factors of her federal 

employment, including carrying mail for several years. She noted that she first became aware of 

her conditions on September 30, 2019 and first realized their relation to her federal employment 

on October 14, 2019. Appellant explained that she was unable to sit or stand for longer than 15 

minutes due to pain in her hip and when she went to the doctor they informed her that her hip pain 

was caused by a back injury. On the reverse side of the claim form appellant’s supervisor indicated 

that she had a medical appointment scheduled for January 15, 2020 and stated that she had not 

returned to work. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted an October 31, 2019 diagnostic report, wherein

Dr. Christopher Sweet, a Board-certified radiologist, performed a magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) scan of appellant’s lumbar spine. He noted a history of lumbar radiculopathy, as well as a 

previous November 1, 2016 MRI scan of her lumbar spine. Dr. Sweet diagnosed a small left 

foraminal disc herniation at L3-L4 and mild degenerative spondylosis involving the lumbar spine.

Dr. Samuel Rosenbaum, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, in a January 15, 2020 

medical note, diagnosed low back pain and sacroiliitis. He indicated that appellant was under his 

care for treatment relating to her right shoulder and opined that she would be disabled from work 

until February 19, 2020.

In an undated statement, appellant explained that during the morning of September 30,

2019 she tried to get out of bed and experienced pain in her hip and back that caused her to lay on 

the floor until she could receive help. She visited the doctor who informed her that her pain was 

caused by a back condition and then sent her to Dr. Rosenbaum for further testing. Appellant 

claimed that both doctors believed her pain was caused by her having to twist, bend, turn and walk 

for 12 hours a day for 7 days a week while carrying mail for 16 years. She noted her diagnoses 

and reasoned that the tear in her back was the cause of her hip pain. Appellant also indicated that 

she had a similar problem in 2017, but noted that it was with her hip.

In a January 22, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the evidence 

necessary to establish her claim and requested a narrative medical report from her treating 

physician, which contained a detailed description of findings and a diagnosis, explaining how her 

work activities caused, contributed to, or aggravated her medical conditions. It afforded her 30 

days to respond. No additional evidence was received.

By decision dated February 25, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that her diagnosed medical 

conditions were causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.
3

On March 6, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s February 25, 2020 

decision. She attached an undated statement from Dr. Rosenbaum in which he explained that she 

underwent an electromyography (EMG) scan which found radiculopathy with inflammation of the 

bilateral sacroiliac joints. Appellant had undergone physical therapy, a home exercise program 

and taken anti-inflammatory medication and a sacroiliac joint injection to treat her condition. She 

also attached multiple March 6, 2020 time analysis forms (Form CA-7a) that indicated that she 

was claiming lost time from work for the period January 18 through March 3, 2020.

By decision dated March 31, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

of the merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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,3that 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.4 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.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 identified employment factors.6

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.7 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.8 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be 

expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical 

 

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 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).

6 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).

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

8 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018).
4

rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s 

specific employment factor(s).9

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

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

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a January 15, 2020 report from Dr. Rosenbaum

in which he indicated that appellant was under his care for treatment relating to her right shoulder 

and diagnosed low back pain and sacroiliitis. 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 Without explaining how appellant’s accepted employment duties 

caused or contributed to her condition, Dr. Rosenbaum’s is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden 

of proof.

Appellant also submitted an October 31, 2019 diagnostic report in which Dr. Sweet 

performed an MRI scan of her lumbar spine and diagnosed a small left foraminal disc herniation 

at L3-4 and mild degenerative spondylosis involving the lumbar spine. The Board has held, 

however, that diagnostic test reports standing alone lack probative value as they do not provide an 

opinion on causal relationship between employment factors and a diagnosed condition.11 

Therefore, this report is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

On appeal appellant contends that OWCP received a blank page that was supposed to 

contain important information regarding her case. She explained that she would like to resubmit 

her claim with the correct paperwork for consideration. However, as was noted above, the Board 

may not consider evidence for the first time on appeal that was not before OWCP at the time it 

issued the final decision in the case.12

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of the Board’s merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 

C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607.

 

9

Id.; Victor J. Woodhams, supra note 6.

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

R.Z., Docket No. 19-0408 (issued June 26, 2019); P.S. Docket No. 18-1222 (issued January 8, 2019).

11 See W.M., Docket No. 19-1853 (issued May 13, 2020); L.F., Docket No. 19-1905 (issued April 10, 2020).

12 Supra note 2.
5

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Section 8128(a) of FECA13 vests OWCP with discretionary authority to determine whether 

to review an award for or against compensation. The Secretary of Labor may review an award for 

or against payment of compensation at any time on his own motion or on application.14

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a), OWCP 

regulations provide that the evidence or argument submitted by a claimant must: (1) show that 

OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advance a relevant legal 

argument not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitute relevant and pertinent new 

evidence not previously considered by OWCP.15

A request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of its 

decision for which review is sought.16 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens and reviews 

the case on its merits.17 If the request is timely, but fails to meet at least one of the requirements 

for reconsideration, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without reopening the case 

for review on the merits.18

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the 

merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

In her request for reconsideration, appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied 

or interpreted a specific point of law, and she did not advance a new and relevant legal argument 

not previously considered. Accordingly, she is not entitled to a review of the merits of her claim 

based on the first and second above-noted requirements under section 10.606(b)(3). 

Furthermore, appellant failed to submit relevant and pertinent new evidence with her 

March 6, 2020 request for reconsideration.19 The underlying issue in this case is whether 

appellant’s medical conditions are causally related to the accepted factors of her federal 

employment. That is a medical issue which must be addressed by relevant medical evidence not 

 

13 Supra note 1.

14 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

15 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(b)(3); see also H.H., Docket No. 18-1660 (issued March 14, 2019); L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 

(issued March 3, 2010); C.N., Docket No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008).

16 Id. at § 10.607(a).

17 Id. at § 10.608(a); see also M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

18 Id. at § 10.608(b); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued March 18, 2010).

19 J.B., Docket No. 18-1531 (issued April 11, 2019); see L.R., Docket No. 18-0400 (issued August 24, 2018); 

Candace A. Karkoff, 56 ECAB 622 (2005).
6

previously considered.20 Although evidence submitted on reconsideration need not carry 

appellant’s burden entirely to suffice for reconsideration, the new evidence must at least be 

relevant and pertinent to the issue upon which the claim was denied.21 

In support of her request for reconsideration, appellant submitted an undated statement in 

which Dr. Rosenbaum indicated that she underwent an EMG that revealed radiculopathy with 

inflammation of the bilateral sacroiliac joints. He also noted that she participated in physical 

therapy, a home exercise program and had received anti-inflammatory medication and a sacroiliac 

joint injection to treat her condition. However, appellant failed to provide an opinion on causal 

relationship. This evidence is therefore irrelevant to the underlying issue of causal relationship.

Thus, she is not entitled to a review of the merits of her claim based on the third requirement under 

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).22

The Board, therefore, finds that appellant has not met any of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.23

CONCLUSION

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

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

finds that OWCP properly denied her request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

 

20 R.S., Docket No. 19-0312 (issued June 18, 2019); T.B., Docket No. 18-1214 (issued January 29, 2019); D.L.,

Docket No. 16-0342 (issued July 26, 2016).

21 R.R., Docket No. 18-1562 (issued February 22, 2019); A.A., Docket No. 18-0031 (issued April 5, 2018); K.B., 

Docket No. 18-1392 (issued January 15, 2019).

22 Id.

23 D.M., Docket No. 18-1003 (July 16, 2020); Susan A. Filkins, 57 ECAB 630 (2006) (when a request for 

reconsideration does not meet at least one of the three requirements enumerated under section 10.606(b), OWCP will 

deny the request for reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on the merits).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 31 and February 25, 2020 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: November 25, 2020

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