United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Milwaukee, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0195

Issued: August 25, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 15, 2021 appellantfiled a timely appealfrom a June 29, 2021 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 met her burden of proof to establish a back condition 

causally related to the accepted January 29, 2021 employment incident. 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the June 29, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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 May 12, 2021 appellant, then a 67-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on January 29, 2021 she sustained a compression fracture when 

organizing boxes in the back of a long-life vehicle (LLV) while in the performance of duty. On 

the reverse side of the form her supervisor indicated that she was not injured in the performance 

of duty. Appellant stopped work on February 2, 2021. In a letter of controversion of even date, 

the employing establishment challenged her claim, contending that she did not notify management 

until three months after the alleged incident and that she did not submit any medical documentation 

to substantiate her claim.

In a development letter dated May 19, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

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

claim and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

submit the necessary evidence. 

OWCP received an after-visitsummary dated February 8, 2021 from Dr. Joel Carroll, a 

Board-certified family practitioner, who noted that appellant was experiencing low back pain for 

two weeks after she reached for packages at work. Dr. Carroll diagnosed acute right-sided lower 

back pain without sciatica. 

In an after-visit summary dated February 15, 2021, Dr. Carroll related appellant’s back 

pain had improved. He diagnosed acute midline thoracic back pain.

On March 1, 2021 appellant followed up with Dr. Carroll who related that her pain was 

less intense at rest, but that she wasstill experiencing symptoms while bending and lifting at work. 

In a June 2, 2021 statement, appellant explained that on January 29, 2021 she was 

organizing packages in the back of her LLV when she felt a muscle spasm. She noted that the pain 

began to worsen in the following weeks while working her delivery route. Appellant indicated 

that on April 1, 2020 she had a separate work-related incident, which resulted in a compression 

fracture and broken wrist.3

On June 8, 2021 Dr. Carroll examined appellant for a follow-up appointment. He reiterated 

that she was experiencing low back pain as a result of moving packages and indicated work 

restrictions of no lifting more than 10 pounds.

By decision dated June 29, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a back condition causally related 

to the accepted January 29, 2021 employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the 

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

3 Appellant has a previously accepted traumatic injury claim for a closed fracture of the lower end of the radius 

under OWCP File No. xxxxxx177.
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT

A claimant seeking benefits under FECA4 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,5that 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.6 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.7

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There 

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must submit 

sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the 

time and place, and in the manner alleged. The second component is whether the employment 

incident caused a personal injury.8

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical 

opinion evidence.

9

 Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a 

physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship between the 

claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors. 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 exp laining the 

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and specific employment factors 

identified by the claimant.

10

4

Supra note 1.

5 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued December 13, 2019); 

Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

6 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020); 

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

7 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); 

DeloresC.Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

8 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); 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).
4

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not established a back condition causally related to the 

accepted January 29, 2021 employment incident.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted medical reports from Dr. Carroll dated 

February 8 through June 8, 2021, wherein he related her history of injury and diagnosed acute right 

sided low back pain caused from reaching for packages while working. Although Dr. Carroll

suggested a work-related cause for appellant’s back condition, he did not provide a rationalized 

medical opinion relating the specific diagnosed condition to the January 29, 2021 employment 

incident. The Board has held that a report is of limited probative value regarding causal 

relationship if it does not contain medical rationale explaining how an employment activity could 

have caused or aggravated a medical condition.11 Therefore, the reports from Dr. Carroll are 

insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

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

related to the accepted January 29, 2021 employment incident, the Board finds that 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(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not established a back condition causally related to the 

accepted January 29, 2021 employment incident.

11 See A.M., Docket No. 19-1394 (issued February 23, 2021); V.D., Docket No. 20-0884 (issued February 12, 2021); 

Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 29, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 25, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board