United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

NEW YORK HARBOR HEALTHCARE

SYSTEM, New York, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0215

Issued: February 14, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Paul Kalker, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 22, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

November 2, 2021 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 a lumbar condition 

causally related to the accepted August 13, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 29, 2021 appellant, then a 53-year-old supply clerical and technician 

employee, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 13, 2020 he

injured his lower back when he tried to push a pallet out of the way of a water leak, while in the 

performance of duty. 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 

August 23, 2020 and returned to work on September 11, 2020. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a medical report dated August 26, 2020 from

Dr. Patricia Scanlan, a Board-certified emergency and internal medicine specialist. Dr. Scanlan 

related that appellant experienced cramping and weakness in his right leg. She stated that 

appellant’s diagnosis was likely lumbar radiculopathy. Discharge instructions noted appellant’s 

diagnosis as lumbar radiculopathy.

OWCP received a radiology report dated August 26, 2020 from Dr. Josh Moosikasuwan, 

a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, which related an impression of moderate degenerative 

disc disease at L5-S1. 

In a radiology report dated August 26, 2020, Dr. Serge Somrov, a Board-certified 

diagnostic radiologist, noted that appellant was seen for right leg pain, but that his right lower 

extremity venous sonogram did not visualize any abnormality. 

Appellant submitted a computerized tomography scan dated September 2, 2020 from

Dr. Mimi S. Lee, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist. Dr. Lee related appellant’s findings as 

grade 1 retrolisthesis of L5 on S1 and multilevel degenerative change, particularly at L5-S1.

OWCP received a radiology report dated September 2, 2020 from Dr. Papia Sen, a 

Board-certified diagnostic and nuclear radiologist. Dr. Sen noted stable degenerative changes in

appellant’s spine. 

In a magnetic resonance imaging scan report dated September 3, 2020, Dr. Harjit Kaur, a 

Board-certified diagnostic and neuroradiology specialist, related that appellant was seen for 

severe lumbosacral and right lower extremity pain. Dr. Kaur noted degenerative changes in

appellant’s spine, which were most prevalent at L5-S1.

OWCP received a September 11, 2020 report, wherein Dr. Lorena M. Layrisse Landaeta, 

Board-certified in geriatric and internal medicine, related that appellant had injured his back on 

August 13, 2020 while moving a pallet at work. Dr. Layrisse Landaeta indicated that this injury 

further worsened appellant’s back condition which he had developed while in the military. 

Appellant’s diagnosis was listed as grade 1 retrolisthesis of L5 on S1 and multilevel degenerative 

changes, most pronounced at the L5-S1 level. 
3

In a report dated October 9, 2020, Dr. Mehrdad Hedayatnia, Board-certified in 

anesthesiology and a pain medicine specialist, related that appellant was seen for lower back pain 

radiating down to his right leg, which onset over 20 years prior. Dr. Hedayatnia related 

appellant’s diagnoses as degenerative lumbar spine disease and mild anterolisthesis of L4 on L5. 

Appellant submitted an operative report dated January 29, 2021 from Dr. Russel Huang, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Appellant’s diagnoses were listed as L5-S1 stenosis and 

degenerative disc disease. Dr. Huang related that appellant underwent minimally invasive 

posterior lateral fusion at L5-S1 and decompression via partial laminectomy at L5-S1. 

In a letter dated March 17, 2021, Dr. Huang noted that appellant had been in his care and 

had undergone spinal surgery on January 29, 2019. He also noted appellant’s current work 

restrictions. 

OWCP received a statement dated March 24, 2021 from appellant’s colleague, D.P., who

attested that on August 13, 2020 he saw appellant push a pallet and injure his back. 

In a development letter dated April 1, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

needed to establish his claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded 

appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

In response, appellant submitted numerous progress reports dated February 2014 through 

April 2019, which pertained to appellant’s lumbar conditions, preceding the August 13, 2020

employment incident.

In a report dated October 13, 2020, Dr. Jenny Lee, a Board-certified physical medicine 

and rehabilitation specialist, related that appellant had lower back pain which was exacerbated on 

August 13, 2020 after he pushed a heavy pallet. She noted that appellant’s diagnosis was grade 1 

retrolisthesis of L5 on S1 and she provided a work excuse. 

OWCP received progress reports dated September 1, 3, and 16, and November 9 and 18, 

2020, from Dr. Joshua Warach, a Board-certified neurologist, wherein he noted discussing with 

appellant regarding his chronic right lumbosacral radiculopathy and proposed surgery.

OWCP received progress reports dated September 24 and December 9, 2020 and

January 8, 2021 from Dr. James L. Stone, a Board-certified neurologist, wherein he related that 

appellant had multi-level degenerative changes at the L5-S1 level with collapse of disc space and 

bilateral foraminal stenoses.

OWCP received a medical report dated March 16, 2021 from Dr. Hasmatul Islam, an 

emergency medicine specialist, which related that appellant was seen in the emergency room for 

lower back pain. 

In progress notes dated March 15, 17 and 29, 2021, Dr. Warach related that he spoke with 

appellant regarding exacerbation of his lumbosacral pain following his surgery.
4

OWCP received a medical report dated April 8, 2021 from Dr. Layrisse Landaeta,

wherein she noted that appellant was seen for a follow-up appointment and was experiencing 

chronic low back pain.

In a letter dated April 13, 2021, Dr. Layrisse Landaeta related that appellant injured his 

back at work while pushing a pallet out of the way on August 13, 2020. She stated that this 

worsened a back condition that appellant suffered from while he was in the military. 

Dr. Layrisse Landaeta stated that the August 13, 2020 incident caused appellant to experience 

symptoms of lumbosacral radiculopathy, for which he underwent surgery. 

By decision dated May 14, 2021, OWCP accepted that the August 13, 2020 employment 

incident occurred, as alleged, but denied appellant’s claim as causal relationship had not been 

established between his diagnosed medical condition(s) and the accepted employment incident. 

It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined 

by FECA. 

OWCP subsequently received additional evidence. In a report dated April 8, 2021,

Dr. Landaeta advised that appellant was seen for a follow-up appointment following his surgery. 

He also noted that appellant had returned to work. 

In a radiology report of appellant’s lumbar spine dated April 28, 2021, Dr. Robert 

Schneider, a Board-certified radiologist, noted bilateral spinal fusion at L5-S1, as well as mild 

multilevel degenerative disease of the thoracic spine, and at C5-6 and C6-7. 

On August 4, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of OWCP’s 

May 14, 2021 decision. 

In support of his request, appellant submitted a letter dated July 2, 2021 from Dr. Huang, 

which related that appellant had a history of intermittent axial low back pain dating back to the 

late 1990s when he was engaged in heavy lifting while serving in the military. Dr. Huang further 

stated that appellant had an additional on-the-job injury in August 2020 while moving a heavy 

load. He diagnosed L5-S1 degenerative disc disease with stenosis and radiculopathy. Dr. Huang 

noted that appellant underwent surgery on January 29, 2021 and returned to work soon after, but 

began suffering from additional back pain. He affirmed with a reasonable degree of medical 

certainty that appellant’s work-related injury of 2020 was the cause of his debilitating right 

radicular pain, which necessitated his lumbar surgery. Dr. Huang recommended permanent work 

restrictions.

By decision dated November 2, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its May 14, 2021 

decision. 

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 

3

Id.
5

States within the meaning 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 a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

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

There are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component is 

whether the employee 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 and can be established only by medical evidence.7

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

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion 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

In any case where a preexisting condition involving the same part of the body is present 

and the issue of causal relationship, therefore, involves aggravation, acceleration, or 

precipitation, the physician must provide a rationalized medical opinion that differentiates 

between the effects of the work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition.10

4 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5 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).

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

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 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).

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

Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

9 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).

10 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013);

see L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); R.D., Docket No. 18-1551 (issued March 1, 2019).
6

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted August 13, 2020 employment incident. 

Appellant submitted reports dated September 11, 2020 and April 13, 2021 from

Dr. Layrisse Landaeta, and July 2, 2021 from Dr. Huang, which noted diagnoses including grade

1 retrolisthesis of L5 on S1, multilevel degenerative changes which were most pronounced at 

L5-S1 level, and lumbar radiculopathy. Both physicians also opined with reasonable medical 

certainty that appellant’s injury at work was the cause of the diagnosed conditions. While

Dr. Layrisse Landaeta and Dr. Huang provided opinions on the causal relationship, they did not 

offer any rationale to explain how the accepted employment incident would have caused 

appellant’s diagnosed conditions.

11

 The Board has held that a report is of limited probative value 

regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale explaining how a given 

medical condition/disability was related to employment factors.

12

 A rationalized medical 

explanation of causal relationship is especially necessary if a preexisting condition is present.13 

As Drs. Layrisse Landaeta and Huang did not explain how the August 13, 2020 employment 

condition physiologically caused or aggravated the diagnosed conditions, their reports are 

insufficient to establish the claim.

OWCP also received multiple progress reports from Drs. Scanlan, Hedayatnia, Huang, 

Lee, Warach, Stone, and Landaeta which listed appellant’s lumbar diagnoses. However, none of 

these reports provided an opinion on causal relationship. 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 As such, these reports are insufficient to 

establish appellant’s claim.

OWCP further received a report dated March 16, 2021 from Dr. Islam, which related that 

appellant was seen in the emergency room for pain in his lower back. However, Dr. Islam did 

not provide an opinion on causal relationship. As noted above, medical evidence that does not 

offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value.

15

 For 

this reason, Dr. Islam’s report is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

Appellant also submitted radiology reports. The Board has held, however, that diagnostic 

tests, standing alone, lack probative value on the issue of causal relationship as they do not 

11 T.W., Docket No. 20-0767 (issued January 13, 2021); see H.A., Docket No. 18-1466 (issued August 23, 2019); 

L.R., Docket No. 16-0736 (issued September 2, 2016).

12 See Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017) (a report is of limited probative value regarding 

causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale describing the relation between work factors and a 

diagnosed condition/disability).

13 Supra note 10. 

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

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

15 Id.
7

address the relationship between the accepted employment factors and a diagnosed condition.16 

For this reason, these reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

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

appellant’s diagnosed lumbar conditions and the accepted employment incident, the Board finds 

that appellant has not met his 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 met his burden of proof to establish a lumbar

condition causally related to the accepted August 13, 2020 employment incident. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 2, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: February 14, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

16 See W.M., Docket No. 19-1853 (issued May 13, 2020); L.F., Docket No. 19-1905 (issued April 10, 2020).