United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.R., Appellant

and

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

KANSAS CITY SOUTH FIELD OFFICE, 

Kansas City, MO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1103

Issued: January 5, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas S. Harkins, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 30, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a November 21, 

2019 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 issuance of the November 21, 2019 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 expand the acceptance of her 

claim to include additional conditions as causally related to her accepted September 11, 2018 

employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 12, 2018 appellant, then a 61-year-old property manager, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 11, 2018 she injured her right ankle, leg, 

hip, back, shoulder, and neck when she slipped, fell back, and hit a wall while in the performance 

of duty. She stopped work on the date of injury and was released to light-duty work on 

October 12, 2018.

Dr. Amos Shemesh, a Board-certified emergency medicine specialist, initially treated 

appellant in a hospital emergency room on the date of her injury. In hospital records dated 

September 11, 2018, Dr. Shemesh indicated that she was evaluated for complaints of ankle, 

shoulder, and groin pain after a slip and fall that day. Upon physical examination, he observed a 

small abrasion to the right medial shin, tenderness of the right anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL) 

and soft tissue, right posterior hip tenderness, and right upper thoracic paraspinal soft tissue 

tenderness. Dr. Shemesh reported that x-ray scans showed no fracture and submitted x-ray scan 

reports of the right hip, pelvis, and right ankle. Appellant was discharged with the diagnosis of 

ankle sprain. 

In a September 14, 2018 report, Dr. John McLaughlin, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon who specializes in hip and knee reconstructive surgery, described the September 11, 2018 

employment incident and noted appellant’s complaints of posterior hip and low back pain. Upon 

examination of the lumbar spine, he observed no midline tenderness, no significant paraspinal 

muscle tenderness, and no tenderness of the sacroiliac joint. Examination of the right hip revealed 

some tenderness over the lateral aspect of the hip and buttocks. Dr. McLaughlin diagnosed right 

hip pain and acute right-sided low back pain without sciatica. 

In a September 18, 2018 evaluation report, Dr. Brian Reade, a podiatrist, described that 

appellant sustained an injury at work on September 11, 2018, when she fell down and hurt her 

shoulder, hip, lower back, and ankle. Upon physical examination, he observed mild swelling of 

the lateral aspect of the right ankle and tenderness along the Achilles tendon on the right side. 

Dr. Reade diagnosed right ankle pain, right ankle ATFL sprain, and right Achilles tendon strain. 

On September 24, 2018 appellant began to receive physical therapy treatment and 

submitted physical therapy treatment reports beginning that date. 

In a September 24, 2018 report, Dr. Nicholas Renaldo, a Board-certified orthopedic spine 

surgeon, noted appellant’s complaints of pain in her back, neck, right shoulder, right arm, and right 

leg after she slipped and fell down at work on September 11, 2018. He reported that cervical and 

lumbar spine examinations were within normal limits with slight tenderness and somewhat 

limitation secondary to pain. Examination of appellant’s right shoulder revealed full range of 

motion and negative impingement and apprehension sign. Dr. Renaldo indicated that Tinel’s and 

Phalen’s tests at the wrist and elbow were negative. Sensory examination of the cervical, thoracic, 

and lumbar spines were also normal. Dr. Renaldo discussed appellant’s diagnostic testing and 
3

diagnosed neck pain, right shoulder pain, acute low back pain, cervical spondylosis, lumbar 

spondylosis, thoracic spondylosis, and spinal degeneration. He completed a duty status report 

(Form CA-17), which indicated that appellant could not work. 

Dr. McLaughlin also submitted an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated 

September 24, 2018. He indicated that on September 11, 2018 appellant slipped and fell at work

and noted her medical history for ankle pain in September 2017. Dr. McLaughlin diagnosed acute 

right side low back pain and Achilles tendon. He checked a box marked “Yes” indicating that the 

diagnosed conditions were causally related to the described employment activity. 

In an October 1, 2018 Form CA-20, Dr. Renaldo described the September 11, 2018 slip

and fall incident and indicated that appellant had a history of right ankle pain that had resolved. 

He diagnosed right ankle, right arm, and right leg sprains. Dr. Renaldo checked a box marked 

“Yes” indicating that the diagnosed conditions were causally related to the described employment 

activity. 

On October 6, 2018 appellant was seen in a hospital emergency room by Dr. David SanniThomas, an osteopath Board-certified in family medicine, for complaints of sore throat and 

difficulty swallowing since October 5, 2018. Hospital records of the same date indicate that she 

was discharged with the diagnosis of acute sinusitis. 

In a November 2, 2018 report, Dr. Renaldo recounted appellant’s complaints of persistent 

neck, right arm, low back, and right leg pain after the September 11, 2018 injury. Examination of 

appellant’s cervical and lumbar spines revealed limited range of motion with stiffness in the neck 

and back posteriorly, as well as slight tenderness. Dr. Renaldo diagnosed cervical and lumbar 

radiculopathy.

In a November 7, 2018 report, Dr. Reade indicated that appellant was seen for follow-up 

evaluation of her September 11, 2018 right ankle injury. Upon physical examination of her right 

ankle, he observed pain on palpation over the ATFL and across the anterior joint line and mild 

instability. Dr. Reade diagnosed right ankle pain, effusion of the right ankle, and right ankle 

instability. 

By decision dated November 26, 2018, OWCP accepted the claim for right ankle sprain 

and right Achilles tendon strain. 

In a separate November 26, 2018 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the 

evidence submitted was insufficient to establish her claim for the additional diagnosed conditions 

of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spondylosis, cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, and acute 

sinusitis. It advised her of the factual and medical evidence necessary to establish her claim and 

also provided a questionnaire for completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to provide the 

necessary factual information and medical evidence. 

On November 30, 2018 appellant submitted additional medical evidence, which predated 

the September 11, 2018 employment incident, including a March 8, 2018 right ankle magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan report, which showed mild degenerative changes and no evidence 

of Achilles tendon tear. She also submitted reports dated May 24 through August 30, 2018 by

Dr. Reade, who treated her for right ankle ATFL sprain, right ankle pain, and right ankle 

instability.
4

Appellant submitted a September 12, 2018 report by Dr. John C. Reade, a Board-certified 

family medicine specialist, who indicated that she had fallen down at work the day before and 

landed on her right ankle, hip, and shoulder. Dr. Reade provided examination findings and 

diagnosed contusion of the lower back, pelvis, right shoulder, and right ankle. 

OWCP also received a November 20, 2018 report by Dr. Reade who noted right ankle 

examination findings of positive anterior drawer and pain on palpation into the ATFL. Dr. Reade 

diagnosed right ankle instability and right ankle pain. He recommended that appellant work 

sedentary duty only and completed a Form CA-17 report. 

In a November 26, 2018 report, Dr. Renaldo noted appellant’s complaints of neck, low 

back, and right arm pain. He conducted an examination and diagnosed “work injury, neck pain 

and right arm pain, low back pain right leg pain.” Dr. Renaldo completed a Form CA-17 report, 

which noted that appellant could work modified duty. 

Appellant underwent additional diagnostic testing on December 15, 17, and 18, 2018. A 

right ankle MRI scan report showed subchondral cysts in the posterior tibial plafond, mild 

insertional Achilles tendinopathy with slight surrounding bursitis without tear, slight lateral distal 

sinus tarsus synovitis, mild dorsal talonavicular bone spurs and capsular thickening, and mild 

posterior tibial tendinopathy/tenosynovitis without tear. A cervical spine MRI scan report revealed 

multilevel disease with interval changes at C2-3, C4-5, C5-6, and C6-7. A lumbar spine MRI scan 

report demonstrated disc bulging and facet arthrosis at the L3-4 and L4-5 levels and facet arthrosis 

at the L5-S1 level. 

In reports dated December 13 and 20, 2018, Dr. Reade indicated that appellant continued 

to experience episodes of right ankle instability and pain following a September 11, 2018 work 

injury. He provided examination findings, discussed the MRI scan findings, and diagnosed right 

ankle pain, right ankle effusion, and right ankle instability. Dr. Reade completed a Form CA-17

report and noted that appellant could work with restrictions. 

Appellant also continued to receive medical treatment from Dr. Renaldo. In a 

December 21, 2018 report, Dr. Renaldo described the September 11, 2018 work injury and 

recounted her complaints of persistent neck and back pain with right leg numbness. He conducted 

an examination and diagnosed cervical and lumbar spondylosis. Dr. Renaldo completed a Form 

CA-17 report indicating that appellant could work with restrictions. 

In a January 15, 2019 letter, Dr. Reade indicated that he had been treating appellant for a 

workplace injury that she had sustained on September 11, 2018. He explained that initial 

evaluation was for a right ankle sprain, but in follow-up evaluations she continued to complain of 

right ankle pain and instability. Dr. Reade noted that he had previously treated appellant for a 

previous right ankle injury. He discussed the findings of the December 20, 2018 right ankle MRI 

scan and indicated that she still had continued pain and sensations of instability in her right ankle 

despite physical therapy, bracing, and strengthening exercises. Dr. Renaldo opined that 

appellant’s right ankle pain and instability were directly related to her September 11, 2018 work 

injury, as she was not having ankle pain or instability prior to the injury. 

By decision dated January 17, 2019, OWCP expanded the acceptance of the claim to 

include lumbar and cervical sprains.
5

Appellant subsequently submitted a January 2, 2019 electromyography and nerve 

conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) study which revealed chronic right C6-7 radiculopathies, mild 

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and mild left cubital tunnel syndrome. 

OWCP also received a January 11, 2019 letter by Dr. John D. Schwerdtz, a podiatrist. 

Dr. Schwerdtz indicated that appellant was seen and evaluated on January 7, 2019. He reported 

that she had informed him that this was her second injury. Appellant noted that her first injury had 

healed without incident, but the current injury had given her several residual problems. 

Dr. Schwerdtz noted that he agreed with Dr. Reade’s assessment that she had lateral ankle 

instability and sequelae from her September 11, 2018 injury that should be surgically addressed. 

In a January 14, 2019 letter, Dr. Renaldo recounted that he first evaluated appellant on 

September 24, 2018 for a work injury that occurred when she slipped, fell, and hit a wall and the 

ground. He discussed her examination findings and diagnostic testing results. Dr. Renaldo 

indicated that appellant was evaluated again on December 21, 2018 with persistent neck and back 

pain and right leg numbness that were not present prior to her fall at work. He opined that appellant 

could not return to work due to her September 11, 2018 work-related injuries. 

On January 16, 2019 appellant underwent another EMG/NCV study, which revealed 

chronic right L4, L5, S1 and left L5 radiculopathies and mild bilateral peroneal neuropathies.

Appellant began to receive treatment from Dr. Vishal Rekhala, an osteopath Boardcertified in physical medicine and rehabilitation. In a January 22, 2019 report, Dr. Rekhala 

indicated that she was referred for evaluation of neck pain radiating to her right upper limb and 

back pain radiating to her right lower limb following a work injury. He reviewed appellant’s 

history, including her recent EMG/NCV studies. Upon examination of her cervical spine,

Dr. Rekhala observed right-sided tenderness, full range of motion, and normal alignment. He 

reported that examination of appellant’s bilateral upper limbs revealed equal to light touch 

sensation and positive Spurling’s and Scalene stretch on the right. Examination of appellant’s 

lumbar spine revealed tenderness to palpation of the lumbar paraspinals and right sciatic notch. 

Straight leg raise testing was positive on the right at 45 degrees. Dr. Rekhala diagnosed cervical 

radiculopathy, lumbar radiculopathy, neck pain, and lumbar spondylosis. He reported that 

appellant was temporarily totally disabled and completed a Form CA-17.

In a February 6, 2019 letter, appellant requested that OWCP add “torn ligament” to her list 

of approved injuries and approve her physician’s request for surgery to repair the torn ligament. 

She alleged that her physician had repeatedly advised that her ankle injury was more than just a 

“sprain.”

On February 11, 2019 appellant returned to full-duty work in a full-time telework position. 

By decision dated February 27, 2019, OWCP denied expansion of appellant’s claim to 

include conditions of right ankle tendon tear, right ankle instability, cervical spondylosis, cervical 

radiculopathy, thoracic spondylosis, lumbar spondylosis, lumbar radiculopathy, acute sinusitis, 

chronic right C6 and C7 radiculopathies, mild bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, mild left cubital 

tunnel syndrome, chronic right L4, L5, S1, and left L5 radiculopathies, mild bilateral peroneal 

neuropathies, C5-6 degeneration, mild facet arthropathy right L4-5, lumbar stenosis, lumbar disc 

herniation, mild degenerative changes in cervical spine, mild degenerative changes in the lumbar 

spine, and right osteochondral defect of the tibial plafond with synovitis of the joint. It found that 
6

the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the additional conditions were 

caused or aggravated by her September 11, 2018 employment injury. 

Appellant subsequently submitted a February 18, 2019 report by Dr. McLaughlin who 

indicated that she was evaluated for complaints of right posterior hip pain radiating down the right 

lower extremity following a September 11, 2018 work injury. Dr. McLaughlin reviewed her

history and noted right hip examination findings of normal range of motion. He diagnosed 

discomfort of the right hip and lumbar radiculopathy.

In reports dated March 15 through May 17, 2019, Dr. Reade recounted appellant’s 

complaints of continued right ankle pain following a slip and fall injury at work. Upon physical 

examination, he observed mild swelling over the anterolateral ankle on the right side and pain upon 

palpation over the ATFL. Dr. Reade diagnosed right ankle instability, right ankle effusion, right 

anterior talofibular ligament sprain, and right ankle pain. He also completed Form CA-17 reports

which indicated that appellant could work full time with work at home accommodations.

In reports dated March 26 and May 16, 2019, Dr. Rekhala indicated that appellant was 

evaluated for continued complaints of neck pain radiating into the right upper link and back pain 

radiating into the right lower limb. He provided examination findings and diagnosed lumbar 

radiculopathy and lumbar spondylosis. Dr. Rekhala completed Form CA-17 reports which 

indicated that appellant could not work. 

Appellant underwent right ankle arthroscopy repair on May 24, 2019. The operative report 

noted a preoperative diagnosis of right ankle joint pain.

On October 8, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted 

additional medical evidence. Counsel contended that the medical evidence established that 

appellant sustained additional medical conditions causally related to the September 11, 2018 

employment injury. 

Appellant submitted reports dated May 30 through July 23, 2019 by Dr. Reade who noted 

that she was status post right ankle arthroscopy and repair and was overall doing well. Dr. Reade 

reported examination findings of fully palpable pedal pulses, minimal postoperative edema, and 

nonrestricted range of motion. He diagnosed right ankle pain, right ankle instability, and right 

ATFL sprain.

In a July 30, 2019 report, Dr. Rekhala indicated that there were no significant changes in 

appellant’s condition since her prior office visit. He provided examination findings and diagnosed 

lumbar radiculopathy and cervical radiculopathy. Dr. Rekhala reported that appellant’s symptoms 

were likely due to radiculopathy. 

Dr. Rekhala also provided a July 30, 2019 letter which noted that he had been treating 

appellant for neck and low back injuries that were directly related to her work-related injury. He 

reported that she denied any prior symptoms in the back or the neck, and “therefore [appellant’s]

symptoms are causally related to this work injury.” Dr. Rekhala also indicated that any preexisting 

findings were likely aggravated as a result of this injury. He explained that appellant’s symptoms 

were consistent with cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, which were also consistent with imaging 

and EMG findings. Dr. Rekhala concluded that appellant would likely need ongoing treatment

with therapy, medications, and epidural steroid injection. 
7

In an August 22, 2019 letter, Dr. Reade explained that he wanted to clarify his original 

letter dated January 15, 2019 regarding why appellant’s surgery was medically necessary and 

secondary to the September 11, 2018 fall and injury at her workplace. He indicated that he had 

previously treated her for a prior workplace injury and noted that she was healing well from that 

injury. Dr. Reade explained that it was not until the September 11, 2018 injury that appellant 

required surgery for her right ankle. He also acknowledged that there were some questions 

regarding her previous MRI scan findings. Dr. Reade pointed out that MRI scan findings were not 

100 percent specific and do not supersede clinical findings. He reported that, intraoperatively and 

on clinical examination, appellant had laxity and instability of the lateral complex and an ATFL 

tear.

By decision dated November 21, 2019, OWCP denied modification of the February 27, 

2019 decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

When an employee claims that a condition not accepted or approved by OWCP was due to 

an employment injury, he or she bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition is causally 

related to the employment injury.4

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.5 A physician’s opinion on whether there is a causal relationship 

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

factual and medical background.6 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 

employment injury.7

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to expand the acceptance 

of her claim to include additional conditions as causally related to her accepted September 11, 

2018 employment injury. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted reports and forms dated September 14, 2018 

through February 18, 2019 by Dr. McLaughlin. Dr. McLaughlin described the September 11, 

2018 employment incident and provided examination findings. He diagnosed right hip pain and 

acute right-sided low back pain without sciatica. The Board has found, however, that “pain” is a 

 

4 R.J., Docket No. 17-1365 (issued May 8, 2019); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200, 204 (2004).

5 E.M., Docket No. 18-1599 (issued March 7, 2019); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996). 

6 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

7

Id.
8

symptom, not a medical diagnosis.8 Accordingly, Dr. McLaughlin’s reports are insufficient to 

establish appellant’s claim for additional conditions. 

Appellant also received medical treatment from Dr. Reade. In reports and forms dated 

September 18, 2018 through July 23, 2019, Dr. Reade recounted that on September 11, 2018 

appellant fell down and hurt her shoulder, hip, lower back, and ankle. Upon initial examination,

he noted right ankle examination findings of mild swelling of the lateral aspect of the right ankle 

and tenderness along the Achilles tendon on the right side. Dr. Reade diagnosed right ankle pain, 

right ankle ATFL sprain, right Achilles tendon strain, effusion of the right ankle, and right ankle 

instability. He further opined in letters dated January 15 and August 22, 2019 that appellant’s right 

ankle pain and instability were directly related to her September 11, 2018 work injury, as she was 

not having ankle pain or instability prior to the injury. Although he opined that her right ankle 

conditions were related to her September 11, 2018 work injury, Dr. Reade did not explain how her

right ankle pain and instability resulted from her accepted injury. The Board has held that a 

medical report is of limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship if it contains a 

conclusion regarding causal relationship, which is unsupported by medical rationale.9 Likewise,

Dr. Schwerdtz’ opinion in his January 11, 2019 letter that he agreed with Dr. Reade’s assessment 

about appellant’s lateral ankle instability and sequelae from her September 11, 2018 injury is also 

insufficient to establish her claim as he did not provide any medical rationale to support his 

opinion.

10

 These reports, therefore, are insufficient to establish expansion of her claim.11

In reports dated January 22 through July 30, 2019, Dr. Rekhala reviewed appellant’s 

history of injury and diagnosed cervical radiculopathy, lumbar radiculopathy, neck pain, and

lumbar spondylosis. In a July 30, 2019 letter, he indicated that he had been treating her for neck 

and low back injuries that were directly related to her work-related injury when she fell against the 

wall and onto the floor. Dr. Rekhala reported that appellant denied any prior symptoms in the back 

or the neck, and “therefore [appellant’s] symptoms are causally related to this work injury.” 

Although he opined that her additional back injuries were directly related to her September 11, 

2018 employment injury, he did not explain how the accepted injury caused the diagnosed 

conditions.12 Furthermore, the Board has held that an opinion that a condition is causally related 

because the employee was asymptomatic before the injury, without adequate rationale, is 

insufficient to establish causal relationship.13

Dr. Renaldo also treated appellant. In reports and forms dated September 24, 2018 through 

January 14, 2019, he described the September 11, 2018 employment injury and provided 

 

8 Findings of pain or discomfort alone do not satisfy the medical aspect of the fact of injury medical determination. 

B.P., Docket No. 12-1345 (issued November 13, 2012); C.F., Docket No. 08-1102 (issued October 2008); Federal 

(FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Fact of Injury, Chapter 2.803.4a(6) (August 2012). 

9 S.S., Docket No. 19-1803 (issued April 1, 2020); Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017); C.M., 

Docket No. 14-0088 (issued April 18, 2014).

10 S.J., Docket No. 19-0489 (issued January 13, 2020); S.O., Docket No. 19-0307 (issued June 18, 2019).

11 C.W., Docket No. 19-1747 (issued September 2, 2020); V.T., Docket No. 18-0881 (issued November 19, 2018).

12 J.R., Docket No. 20-0292 (issued June 26, 2020); C.J., Docket No. 18-0148 (issued August 20, 2018); 

Franklin D. Haislah, 52 ECAB 457 (2001). 

13 R.V., Docket No. 18-1037 (issued March 26, 2019); M.R., Docket No. 14-0001 (issued August 27, 2014).
9

examination findings. Dr. Renaldo discussed appellant’s diagnostic testing and diagnosed cervical 

and lumbar spondylosis, cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, thoracic spondylosis, and spinal 

degeneration. In a January 14, 2019 letter, he opined that she could not return to work due to the 

injuries that she sustained at work on September 11, 2018. These reports, however, do not provide 

an opinion on the cause of appellant’s cervical and lumbar conditions. 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.14 These reports, therefore, are insufficient 

to establish the expansion of appellant’s claim.

Likewise, Dr. Sanni-Thomas’ October 6, 2018 hospital emergency department report and

Dr. Reade’s September 12, 2018 report, are insufficient to establish the expansion of appellant’s 

claim as these reports provided medical diagnoses, but provided no opinion on the cause of her

diagnosed sinusitis and contusion of the lower back, pelvis, right shoulder, and right ankle.

15

 

OWCP also received diagnostic testing reports, including the cervical, lumbar, and right 

ankle MRI scan reports dated March 8 and December 2018 and EMG/NCV study reports dated 

January 2 and 16, 2019. However, diagnostic studies, standing alone, lack probative value on the 

issue of causal relationship as they do not address whether an employment incident caused the 

diagnosed condition.16 

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish causal relationship between 

the additional conditions and the accepted September 11, 2018 employment injury, the Board finds 

that appellant has not met her burden of proof. 

On appeal, counsel argues that the medical evidence of record established that all the 

described medical conditions are compensable under FECA. As explained above, however, 

appellant has not met her 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 and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to expand the acceptance 

of her claim to include additional conditions as causally related to her accepted September 11, 

2018 employment injury. 

 

14 T.D., Docket No. 18-1157 (issued March 26, 2019); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., 

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

15 Id. 

16 F.S., Docket No. 19-0205 (issued June 19, 2019); A.B., Docket No. 17-0301 (issued May 19, 2017).
10

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 21, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 5, 2021

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board