United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

H.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE 

LOGISTICS AGENCY, TRACY DEPOT, 

Tracy, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0610

Issued: September 28, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, 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 January 27, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a November 13, 

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. 

 

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 has met his burden of proof to establish Valley Fever 

causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 1, 2019 appellant, then a 60-year-old distribution process worker, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he contracted coccidioidomycosis, also 

known as Valley Fever, due to factors of his federal employment. He noted that he worked as a 

warehouse worker on a government installation with continuous, ongoing heavy construction. 

Appellant indicated that he first became aware of his condition and realized its relation to his

federal employment on December 4, 2018. He stopped work on December 4, 2018. 

Along with his claim form, appellant submitted a letter from the employing establishment, 

dated April 3, 2018. The letter indicated that there had been a complaint alleging that employees 

were exposed to construction dust and soil, which may have caused Valley Fever. It asserted that 

three employees had contracted Valley Fever since October 2017. The employing establishment 

noted that, following an internal investigation, it could not substantiate these allegations. It 

claimed that employees were educated on known hazards and were given personal protective 

equipment. The employing establishment indicated that it conducted ongoing air quality 

assessments and briefed employees on the federal and local regulations and policies prior to the 

start of construction projects. It reported that Valley Fever could be contracted from tiny seeds 

and spores that were present in the San Joaquin Valley. 

In a development letter dated April 8, 2019, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

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

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

days to submit the necessary evidence. 

Dr. Nyo Hla, a Board-certified specialist in internal medicine, indicated in a February 16, 

2019 work status report that appellant was placed off work from February 16 through 

March 2, 2019. He noted that appellant was able to return to full-time work on March 3, 2019. 

In a March 5, 2019 work status report, Dr. Veena Devarakonda, a Board-certified specialist 

in critical care medicine, indicated that appellant was placed off work from March 15 through 

April 17, 2019. 

Dr. Catherine Leng, an osteopathic physician specializing in family medicine, noted in a 

March 22, 2019 report that appellant had a chronic condition, which required treatment and might 

result in episodic incapacity. She indicated that appellant was unable to perform some of his job 

functions due to his condition. Dr. Leng noted that the probable duration of appellant’s condition 

lasted through April 1, 2020. 

In a March 29, 2019 work status report, Dr. Devarakonda placed appellant on modifiedduty work from April 27 through May 22, 2019. She noted that appellant was able to return to 

full-time work on May 23, 2019.
3

By decision dated May 13, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that the factual evidence of record was insufficient to establish specific employment factors 

that were alleged to have caused his claimed condition.

Appellant continued to submit additional medical evidence. In a December 5, 2018 report,

Dr. Linnea Williams, an osteopathic physician specializing in family medicine, noted that 

appellant had a cough that lasted three weeks. She examined appellant and diagnosed cough and 

nasal congestion. 

In a December 7, 2018 report, Dr. Max Miller, a Board-certified specialist in internal 

medicine, noted appellant’s complaints of fevers, chills, severe cough, and chest pain. He 

examined appellant and diagnosed community-acquired right lower lobe pneumonia. 

Diagnostic testing, dated December 10, 2018, showed the results of electrocardiogram 

(EKG), hematology, metabolic, liver, and urine testing.

Posteroanterior and lateral x-ray views of appellant’s chest revealed right lower lobe 

infiltrate. 

In a December 10, 2018 emergency room report, Dr. Danica Barron, a Board-certified 

specialist in emergency medicine, noted that appellant presented with shortness of breath, chest 

tightness, and continuous hiccupping. She reviewed an x-ray of appellant’s chest and diagnosed 

pneumonia and hiccups.

In a December 10, 2018 report, Dr. Kulwant Monder, a Board-certified specialist in 

internal medicine, noted that appellant had a cough and fever that had lasted three weeks. He

indicated that appellant worked at a warehouse. Dr. Monder reviewed laboratory testing and an 

x-ray of appellant’s chest and diagnosed community-acquired pneumonia and sepsis without acute 

organ dysfunction. 

A computerized tomography (CT) scan of appellant’s chest revealed a mass-like 

consolidation in the right lower lobe. 

Serum antibody testing, dated December 10, 2018, revealed the presence of coccidioides 

antibodies, confirming Valley Fever. 

In a March 20, 2019 report, Dr. Leng noted that appellant presented with Valley Fever. 

She examined appellant and diagnosed pulmonary coccidioidomycosis. Dr. Leng indicated that 

appellant should be off work from December 31, 2018 through March 31, 2019. 

In a March 27, 2019 note, Dr. Devarakonda noted that appellant’s headaches and Valley 

Fever symptoms were improving. In a March 28, 2019 note, she noted that appellant could return 

to modified-duty work with medium restrictions between April 18 and 30, 2019. Dr. Devarakonda 

indicated that he could return to full-duty work on May 1, 2019.

In an April 18, 2019 note, Dr. Devarakonda indicated that appellant remained off work. In 

an April 21, 2019 note, she diagnosed pulmonary coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever).
4

On June 12, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, which was held on 

September 23, 2019. Appellant testified that he worked as a warehouse worker and was exposed 

to dust from construction projects at work. He further testified that he began feeling flu-like 

symptoms on November 7, 2018 and left work in early December 2018. Appellant indicated that 

he lived in Stockton, California in the San Joaquin Valley. He testified that, while he fished and 

golfed in the area, he was only exposed to airborne dust while at work. Appellant stated that four 

of his coworkers were also ill with Valley Fever.

In an October 21, 2019 letter, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim, 

noting that he could not identify specific dates when he was exposed to construction dust. It 

asserted that appellant lived in a Valley Fever-endemic area of California and could have 

contracted Valley Fever outside of work when he was fishing or playing golf. The employing 

establishment attached a list of all construction projects at the employing establishment from 2016 

to 2019 and alleged that there were no soil-disturbing or digging projects associated with Valley 

Fever during the one- to three-week incubation period following November 2018, the date of 

exposure. 

By decision dated November 13, 2019, an OWCP hearing representative modified the 

May 13, 2019 decision, finding that appellant had established specific employment factors alleged 

to have caused his diagnosed condition. However, the claim remained denied as the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish a causal relationship between the diagnosed 

condition and the accepted factors of his federal employment.

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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period 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 the following: (1) a factual statement identifying 

employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the 

 

3 Supra note 2.

4 R.M., Docket No. 20-0342 (issued July 30, 2020); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

5 V.P., Docket No. 20-0415 (issued July 30, 2020); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 

312 (1988).

6 20 C.F.R. § 10.115; S.A., Docket No. 20-0458 (issued July 23, 2020); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued 

February 7, 2014); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
5

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.7

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.8 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual 

and medical background of the claimant, 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.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish Valley Fever 

causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted hospital reports from Drs. Williams, Miller, 

Barron, and Monder, dated December 5 through 10, 2018. In these reports, the physicians 

diagnosed cough, nasal congestion, pneumonia, and sepsis. However, they did not provide a 

medical diagnosis of Valley Fever or offer an opinion as to whether appellant’s employment 

caused or aggravated his diagnosed 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.10 As such, these reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s 

burden of proof to establish his claim.

Appellant also submitted work status reports from Drs. Hla, Leng, and Devarakonda, dated 

February 16 through April 18, 2019. In these reports, the physicians excused appellant from work, 

listed his work restrictions, and provided a date when he could return to full-duty work. However, 

they did not provide a firm medical diagnosis, a rationalized medical opinion, or objective findings 

of any kind.11 The Board therefore finds that these reports are of no probative value and are 

insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.12

In a March 20, 2019 report, Dr. Leng indicated that appellant had a recent episode requiring 

hospitalization and presented with Valley Fever. She examined appellant and diagnosed 

pulmonary Valley Fever. While Dr. Leng provided a diagnosis of Valley Fever, she did not offer 

an opinion as to whether appellant’s employment caused or aggravated his diagnosed condition. 

As noted, medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s 

 

7 See B.H., Docket No. 18-1693 (issued July 20, 2020); Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Victor J. 

Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

8 L.S., Docket No. 19-1769 (issued July 10, 2020); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

9 B.C., Docket No. 20-0221 (issued July 10, 2020); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

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

11 See L.F., Docket No. 19-1845 (issued May 8, 2020).

12 Id.
6

condition or disability is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship and is insufficient 

to establish appellant’s claim.13

Similarly, in an April 21, 2019 note, Dr. Devarakonda diagnosed Valley Fever, but did not 

offer an opinion as to whether appellant’s employment caused or aggravated his diagnosed 

condition. Accordingly, this note is of no probative value and is insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim.14

The record contains numerous diagnostic tests, dated December 10, 2018, including x-rays, 

a CT scan, EKG testing, hematology testing, urine testing, and serum antibody testing. The Board 

has held, however, that diagnostic test reports, standing alone, lack probative value as they do not 

provide an opinion on whether there is a causal relationship between employment factors and a 

diagnosed condition.15

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence to support his claim that his 

diagnosed condition of Valley Fever was causally related to the accepted factors of his federal 

employment, he has not met his burden of proof to establish his claim. He 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 Valley Fever 

causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

 

13 Supra note 10.

14 Id.

15 J.P., Docket No. 20-0381 (issued July 28, 2020).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 13, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 28, 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