United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, DOVER ANNEX, 

Wharton, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0460

Issued: January 19, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

James D. Muirhead, Esq., for the appellant1

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 February 2, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a December 2, 

2020 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.

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.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish a cervical condition 

causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 19, 2016 appellant, then a 49-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed cephalgia and occipital cervical nerve palsy 

due to carrying her postal carrier bagwhich was excessively heavy. She noted that she first became 

aware of this condition in October 2012, but did not realize its relationship to factors of her federal 

employment until November 2012. Appellant stopped work on September 27, 2016.

In an October 21, 2016 form report,Dr. Walter G. Husar, a neurologist, diagnosed occipital 

pain, cephalgia, and cervical nerve sprain and strain with an onset date of October 2012. He 

indicated that appellant was capable of working two to four hours per day, three to four days per

week, from November 16 to December 23, 2016.

In a December 1, 2016 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical 

evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 

days to submit the necessary evidence.

In a December 9, 2016 report, Dr. Slobodan Miric, a Board-certified neurologist, diagnosed

right occipital neuralgia, cervicalgia, and possible left C7 cervical radiculopathy. He detailed 

motor, sensory, and physical examination findings.

A December 12, 2016 bilateral upper extremity electromyograph/nerve conduction 

velocity (EMG/NCV) study showed left C6 subacute cervical radiculopathy and right mild carpal 

tunnel syndrome.

In a report dated December 22, 2016, Dr. Mehul Shah, a Board-certified anesthesiologist,

diagnosed cervical radiculopathy, cervicalgia, sacroiliitis, lumbar facet arthropathy, and chronic 

low back pain. Appellant attributed her right-sided cervicalgia, left upper extremity radiculopathy, 

and numbness to her job duties including continuous activity and lifting of heavy packages.

Dr. Shah opined that her cervical radiculopathy and cervicalgia along the occipital neuralgia 

“could be work related given her physically demanding job.”

In a report dated December 23, 2016, Dr. Miric, based on appellant’s examination findings, 

diagnosed cervical radiculopathy, chronic cervical spinal pain, and cervical spinal stenosis with 

myelopathy. He noted that she had related that approximately three years prior she slipped and 

fell at work, which aggravated her cervical spine pain.

Dr. Shah, in an unsigned January 19, 2017 report, detailed the history of appellant’s neck 

and arm pain beginning in 2012. He provided examination findings and diagnosed cervical 

radiculopathy. Dr. Shah attributed appellant’s condition and pain to her employment duties which 

required continuous activity and lifting of heavypackages. He recommended a functional capacity 

evaluation (FCE) to determine her work capacity.
3

By decision dated January 30, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

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

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

On February 22, 2017 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, which was held on August 15, 2017. 

Prior to the hearing, appellant submitted an undated report from Dr. Shah. Dr. Shah noted that

appellant had experienced neck and arm pain since 2012, which she attributed to her employment 

duties including carrying up to 70-pound packages and continuous lifting. He opined that her

condition was directly related to her physically demanding job.

In a decision dated October 12, 2017, the hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

January 30, 2017 decision.

On August 17, 2018 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted 

an August 15, 2018 report from Dr. Shah, in support of her request. Dr. Shah reiterated her

medical history and examination findings from his prior reports. He reviewed appellant’s letter 

carrier job duties which included holding mail with the left arm for long periods of time, lifting 

trays and tubs of mail to vehicle tray level, loading large parcels into equipment, pushing/pulling 

up to 20 pounds and lifting between 15 and 35 pounds with occasional lifting up to 70 pounds. 

Based on his review of her work duties, Dr. Shah found that her years of repetitive heavy lifting 

and carrying a postal carrier bag, could cause and aggravate her herniated discs and spondylitic 

changes.

By decision dated November 14, 2018, OWCP denied modification.

On October 25, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted

additional evidence. Dr. Miric, in a June 28, 2019 report, detailed appellant’s neurological and 

physical findings and diagnosed cervical spinal pain, cervical spondylosis, and mild compressive 

cervical myelopathy.

In his August 19, 2019 report, Dr. Miric reviewed a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 

scan which demonstrated stable cervical spondylosis and multilevel cervical disease which had

not progressed since the prior study. He also related appellant’s physical examination findings.

By decision dated January 15, 2020, OWCP denied modification.

On March 12, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted 

additional evidence. 

In the February 24, 2020 report, Dr. Ira Goldstein, a Board-certified neurologist, noted that 

appellant’s symptoms were not due to a single clear incident, and he noted that she had several 

falls over the years while working as a mail carrier. He reviewed an MRI scan which demonstrated 

C4-5 large disc osteophyte and retrolisthesis as well as films from 2016 to 2017 showing 

degenerative changes. Dr. Goldstein opined that appellant’s duties which required heavy lifting 

exposed her neck and low back to greater mechanical stresses which accelerated her spinal 

degenerative disease. He explained that her long and repeated exposure to the mechanical stress 
4

caused by her job duties led to her cervical disc degeneration, development of retrolisthesis, 

osteophyte production resulting in neural compression, and radiculopathy.

In letter dated March 16, 2020, OWCP requested clarification fromDr. Goldstein regarding 

the physiological process by which the accepted specific employment factors caused or aggravated

the diagnosed conditions. It advised that pain was not a valid diagnosis under FECA, but 

considered a symptom. OWCP afforded Dr. Goldstein 20 days to respond. No response was 

received.

By decision dated June 3, 2020, OWCP denied modification.

On September 18, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. 

Accompanying her reconsideration request was a September 17, 2020 report from Dr. Goldstein.

Dr. Goldstein summarized appellant’s medical treatment, medical history, noted her employment 

duties, and attributed her neck pain and neurological symptoms to the ears of mechanical stresses 

due to heavy labor. He explained that long work hours, frequent overtime, 60- to 80-pound 

mailbag, and continuous walking, lifting, bending while carrying a heavy bag over her right 

shoulder contributed to the development of right-sided disc osteophyte complex, cervical 

radiculopathy, and neck pain. Appellant’s symptoms were modest outside of her work, and most 

notable while she was working, which he explained was consistent with her work activity

contributing to the exacerbation and development of her radiculopathy.

By decision dated December 2, 2020, OWCP denied modification.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including 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 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: (1) a factual statement identifying employment factors 

alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or condition; 

3

Id.

4 H.H., Docket No. 20-0839 (issued May 25, 2021); C.G., Docket No. 20-0957 (issued January 27, 2021); J.W., 

Docket No. 18-0678 (issued March 3, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); Joe D. Cameron, 

41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5 H.H., id.; J.S., Docket No. 18-0657 (issued February 26, 2020); J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 

2018); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 H.H., id.; L.J., Docket No. 19-1343 (issued February 26, 2020); R.R., Docket No. 18-0914 (issued February 24, 

2020); DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
5

(2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition for which 

compensation is claimed; and (3) rationalized medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed 

condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant. 7

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish causal 

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.8 The opinion of the physician must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background of the employee, 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 specific employment factors identified by the employee. 9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

In support of her claim, appellant provided narrative reports from Dr. Goldstein dated 

February 24 and September 17, 2020. Dr. Goldstein summarized hermedical treatment, noted her

history of falls at work and provided physical examination findings. He explained that her long 

and repeated exposure to the mechanical stress caused by her job duties led to her cervical disc 

degeneration, development of retrolisthesis, osteophyte production resulting in neural 

compression, and radiculopathy which he attributed to appellant’s employment. In both reports,

Dr. Goldstein opined that her cervical conditions were exacerbated by her employment duties, 

which included long work hours, frequent overtime, carrying a 60- to 80-pound mailbag over her 

right shoulder, and lifting and bending. In both reports, he explained that her duties exposed her 

neck to greater mechanical stresses which in turn accelerated her spinal degenerative disease. The 

Board finds that, while not fully rationalized and sufficient to establish the claim, Dr. Goldstein’s 

reports provide a mechanism of injury, reference objective diagnostic reports, and support that 

appellant’s diagnosed conditions are causally related due to the accepted employment factors.

10

 

They also raise an uncontroverted inference between appellant’s diagnosed conditions and her 

accepted factors of employment and, thus, they are sufficient to require OWCP to further develop 

the medical evidence.11

It is well established that, proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and, while 

appellant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares 

7 C.G., supra note 4; S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008).

8

I.J., Docket No. 19-1343 (issued February 26, 2020); T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008); RobertG. Morris, 48 ECAB 

238 (1996).

9 D.C., Docket No. 19-1093 (issued June 25, 2020);see L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018).

10 E.P., Docket No. 19-1703 (issued April 16, 2021); C.W., Docket No. 19-0322 (issued July 18, 2019); X.V.,

Docket No. 18-1360 (issued April12, 2019); D.W., Docket No. 17-1884 (issued November 8, 2018); John J. Carlone, 

41 ECAB 354 (1989).

11 M.R., Docket No. 20-0101 (issued September 14, 2021); RichardE. Simpson, 55 ECAB 490 (2004); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354, 360 (1989).
6

responsibility in the development of the evidence.12 OWCP has an obligation to see that justice is 

done.13

The case shall therefore be remanded to OWCP for further development. On remand 

OWCP shall prepare a statement of accepted facts, the medical evidence of record, and appellant 

to a specialist in the appropriate field of medicine for a second opinion evaluation. Upon referral, 

the physician shall conduct a physical examination and provide a rationalized medical opinion as 

to whether her cervical conditions were caused or aggravated by factors of her employment. If the 

second opinion physician opines that the diagnosed conditions are not causally related, he or she 

must explain with rationale how or why the opinion differs from that of Dr. Goldstein’s reports. 

Following this, and any other further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de 

novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

12 See supra note 4; H.H., Docket No. 20-0839 (issued May 25, 2021); J.P., Docket No. 19-1206 (issued 

February11, 2020); M.G., Docket No. 18-1310 (issued April 16, 2019); Walter A. Fundinger, Jr., 37 ECAB 

200 (1985).

13 See H.H., id.; J.P., id.; C.M., Docket No. 17-1977 (issued January 29, 2019); A.J., Docket No. 18-0905 (issued 

December 10, 2018); WilliamJ. Cantrell, 34 ECAB 1233, 1237 (1983).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 2, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with decision of the Board.

Issued: January 19, 2022

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