United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, COPPELL POST 

OFFICE, Coppell, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0779

Issued: December 12, 2022

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, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 19, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 4, 2022 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 established a medical condition causally related to the 

accepted January 20, 2022 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the April4, 2022 decision, appellant submitted 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 11, 2022 appellant, then a 49-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 20, 2022 he injured his neck, shoulder, left 

elbow, and chest when he lost his footing on an uneven drive, fell on his left side under the van

while in the performance of duty. He explained that this caused pain from his. On the reverse side 

of the claim form, appellant’s supervisor acknowledged that appellant was injured in the 

performance of duty. Appellant stopped work on January 20, 2022.

In a development letter dated February 22, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary and

afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

Appellant subsequently submitted a February 7, 2022 cervical spine magnetic resonance 

imaging (MRI) scan, which demonstrated advanced multilevel spondylosis, C2-3 severe right 

foraminal stenosis, C3-4 mild left and moderate-to-severe right foraminal stenosis, C4-5 mild 

canal stenosis and cord impingement, C4-5 moderate-to-severe left and severe right foraminal 

stenosis, C5-6 mild canal stenosis and cord impingement, C5-6 severe bilateral foraminal stenosis, 

more pronounced on the right, and C6-7 moderate-to-severe bilateral foraminal stenosis. 

In a February 9, 2022 report, Dr. Andrew M. Jen, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

related that appellant was seen for a one-week follow up for left shoulder pain and left arm 

radiculopathy. Appellant reported that the tingling and shooting sensation in his chest wall had 

stopped, but he still had pain going down his shoulder and arm. Dr. Jen noted that appellant had 

a history of prior lumbar spine problems for which he had received treatment, but that he had not 

received any treatment for his cervical spine. He reviewed MRI scans of appellant’s cervical and 

thoracic spine, noting findings of significant foraminal stenosis, particularly at C5-6 and C6-7 on 

the left, as well as some mild compression of a few nerve roots in the thoracic spine. Examination 

of the left shoulder demonstrated forward flexion of 170 degrees, abduction of 90 degrees, external 

rotation of 60 degrees, and mid-thoracic internal rotation. Dr. Jen diagnosed cervical 

radiculopathy and recommended evaluation by a spine surgeon for further evaluation of the 

cervical spine and possible injections to the cervical spine. 

In a February 22, 2022 work excuse note, Dr. Jen indicated that appellant was seen on 

February 9, 2022. He held appellant off work pending evaluation on March 11, 2022. Dr. Jen also 

advised that appellant could not drive until further notice. 

In a March 8, 2022 work excuse note, Dr. Jen advised that appellant should not drive long 

distances until further notice. He noted that appellant would be scheduled for surgery on a date to 

be determined. 

A March 11, 2022 report from Dr.Jose Reyna, a Board-certified orthopedic spine surgeon, 

related that appellant experienced neck and left upper extremity pain, which began on January 20, 

2022 when he sustained a ground-level fall while performing yard work. He reviewed the

February 7, 2022 cervical spine MRI scan and a thoracic spine MRI scan taken on the same date 

that demonstrated T9-10 right-sided disc osteophyte complex projecting posteriorly, T7-8 

left-sided disc osteophyte complex with abutment of the left-side of the spinal cord, and 42 degree
3

levoscoliosis of the thoracolumbar region. Dr. Reyna also reviewed March 11, 2022 cervical spine

x-rays demonstrating C4-5 and C5-6 moderate-degenerative disc disease with early anterior 

osteophyte formation, thoracic spine x-rays demonstrating mild dextroscoliosis of the mid-thoracic 

spine and significant osteophyte formation in the lower thoracic spine suggestive of diffuse 

idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH), and lumbar spine x-rays demonstrating approximately 

50 degree degenerative or idiopathic dextroscoliosis of the thoracolumbar region, mild left lateral 

listhesis of L3 or L4, and large diffuse osteophyte formation suggestive of DISH. Examination 

findings revealed bilateral tenderness to palpation over the paraspinous muscles of the upper 

thoracic spine and positive left Spurling test. Dr. Reyna diagnosed spondylosis of cervical spine 

with radiculopathy, adolescent idiopathic scoliosis of thoracic region, thoracic spondylosis, 

degenerate scoliosis in adult patient, lumbar spondylosis, DISH, C4-5 degenerative disc disease, 

multilevel foraminal stenosis, left greater than right cervical spondylosis, and degenerative or 

idiopathic right thoracic and left thoracolumbar scoliosis.

By decision dated April 4, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

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

conditions and the accepted January 20, 2022 employment incident. Consequently, it found that 

the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

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 determine whether an employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of 

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

consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The first 

3

Supra note 1.

4

S.S., Docket No. 19-1815 (issued June26, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5 M.H., Docket No. 19-0930 (issued June 17, 2020); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 

312 (1988).

6

S.A., Docket No. 19-1221 (issued June 9, 2020); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); DeloresC. 

Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
4

component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that allegedly 

occurred.7 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury.8

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific 

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 9 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.

10

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted January 20, 2022 employment incident.

In his March 11, 2022 report, Dr. Reyna related that appellant experienced neck and left 

upper extremity pain, which began on January 20, 2022 when he fell while performing yard work

and diagnosed multiple cervical and thoracic conditions. This history, however, contradicts 

appellant’s account of falling under his work van while in the performance of duty. Dr. Reyna did 

not provide an opinion on causal relationship between appellant’s diagnosed conditions and the 

accepted January 20, 2022 employment incident. The Board has held that evidence that fails to 

provide an opinion on causal relationship is of no probative value.11 Thus, this evidence is 

insufficient to establish the claim.

In a February 9, 2022 report, Dr. Jen diagnosed cervical radiculopathy. Appellant also 

submitted work restriction notes from Dr. Jen dated February 22 and March 8, 2022. None of 

these notes offered an opinion on causal relationship. As noted above, 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. 12 For this reason, this evidence is

insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

Appellant also submitted a February 7, 2022 cervical spine MRIscan. The Board has held, 

however, that diagnostic testing reports, standing alone, lack probative value on the issue of causal 

relationship as they do not address the relationship between the accepted employment factors and 

7 R.K., Docket No. 19-0904 (issued April10, 2020); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

8 Y.D., Docket No. 19-1200 (issued April6, 2020); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

9

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April24, 2019); RobertG. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

10 T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 2020); 

Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

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

12 Id. See also, S.J., Docket No. 19-0696 (issued August 23, 2019); M.C., Docket No. 18-0951 (issued 

January 7, 2019).
5

a diagnosed condition.13 For this reason, this evidence is also insufficient to meet appellant’s 

burden of proof.

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish a medical condition causally 

related to the accepted January 20, 2022 employment incident, the Board finds that appellant 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 medical 

condition causally related to the accepted January 20, 2022 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 4, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 12, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

13 W.M., Docket No. 19-1853 (issued May 13, 2020); L.F., Docket No. 19-1905 (issued April10, 2020).