United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BENT TREE 

STATION, Dallas, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0163

Issued: April 4, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 10, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 26, 2020 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.

ISSUE

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

causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 28, 2019 appellant, then a 44-year-old former rural carrier associate, filed an 

occupational disease (Form CA-2) claim alleging that she sustained lower back and lower 

extremity injuries due to factors of her federal employment, including repetitive bending, lifting 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

and carrying heavy packages and prolonged walking and standing. She noted that she first became 

aware of her conditions and their relation to her federal employment on December 1, 2017. 

Appellant explained that she uses a walker and that she has sharp pain radiating into her legs and 

numbness in her right foot. She stopped work on December 1, 2017.

In a statement dated February 14, 2020, appellant indicated that she had worked for the 

employing establishment for nine years, and that her work duties included transporting trays of 

mail, sweeping mail from machines into trays, and pulling automated postal centers. She explained 

that these tasks required her to constantly bend and pull, which caused pain in her back. In 

addition, appellant indicated thatshe delivered packages weighing up to 150 pounds, which she 

sometimes had to carry up three flights of stairs, and bundled advertising pages which weighed 

from 50 to 100 pounds, which she had to hold while distributing them into individual mailboxes. 

These activities also put stress on her back. Appellant further asserted that she and her medical 

providers had previously attempted to include her lumbar conditions with a prior claim under 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx196.

2

In a February 25, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and provided a 

questionnaire for her completion. OWCPafforded appellant 30 days to submit additional evidence 

and to respond to its inquiries.

OWCP thereafter received an electromyogram and nerve conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) 

study dated August 16, 2018 by Dr. Robert Helsten, a physical medicine and rehabilitation 

specialist, which demonstrated abnormal spontaneous potentials at rest in the right peroneus longus 

muscle.

In a February 14, 2020 report, Dr. Brian Rogers, an osteopath specializing in occupational 

medicine, noted that appellant related a history of lower back and leg pain which she attributed to 

repetitively bending, picking up trays of mail and heavy advertisement bundles, and carrying heavy 

packages while at work for the past several years. On physical examination he noted tenderness 

to palpation at L1-3, reduced reflexes in the right patella, reduced strength in the right lower 

extremity, and decreased sensation to light touch on the right outer calf. Dr. Rogers further noted

that appellant was not able to heel toe walk, and that she had a positive straight leg raise on the 

left. He diagnosed a sprain of the ligaments of the lumbar spine, lumbar intervertebral disc 

displacement, and lumbar radiculopathy. Dr. Rogers recommended that appellant undergo a 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the lumbar spine. 

An MRI scan of the lumbar spine dated February 25, 2020 documented a left central and 

paracentral disc protrusion/herniation with mild thecal sac stenosis at L1-2; a right posterolateral 

disc bulge at L4-5; and a disc protrusion/herniation with very mild bilateral neural foraminal 

narrowing at L5-S1. In a follow-up report dated March 4, 2020, Dr. Rogers noted ongoing 

2 The record reflects that appellant has a previously accepted November 8, 2017traumatic injury under OWCP File 

No. xxxxxx916 for a right rotator cuff tear, cervical radiculopathy, and sprains of the ligaments of the cervical and 

thoracic spines. 
3

complaints in the lower back and legs. He performed an examination and reviewed the MRI scan 

results. 

In a March 10, 2020 narrative report, Dr. Rogers reiterated appellant’s complaints of low 

back pain which radiated into her legs and caused her difficulty walking for long periods of time. 

He summarized his prior examination findings and reviewed the August 16, 2018 EMG and 

February 25, 2020 MRI scan results and also referenced a lumbar MRI scan conducted on 

July 12, 2018. Dr. Rogers noted a date of injury of December 1, 2017 and diagnosed intervertebral 

disc disorder with radiculopathy and lumbar sprain sequelae. He opined that appellant’s 

employment duties, including picking up trays of mail, putting out bundled advertising pages 

weighing between 50 to 100 pounds, delivering packages weighing up to 150 pounds which she 

sometimes carried up flights of stairs, and standing and holding heavy bundles of advertisements 

while distributing them to individual boxes, caused her lumbar injuries. Dr. Rogers explained that 

these duties caused excessive torquing and repetitive trauma to her low back which exceeded the 

amount of lifting her lumbar discs, tissue fascia, and ligaments could tolerate.

By decision dated March 26, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she had 

not submitted sufficient evidence to establish employment factors alleged to have caused or 

contributed to the presence or occurrence of a disease or condition. Consequently, it found that 

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

On July 1, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration. In support of her request, she 

submitted a statement dated April 23, 2020 noting that when she initially received treatment for 

her November 8, 2017 neck and right shoulder conditions, she also complained to her providers of 

low back pain. 

OWCP thereafter received an April 10, 2020 statement from appellant, reiterating that her 

employment duties included bending, pulling, and picking up bundles, carrying heavy packages 

up flights of stairs, and holding heavy advertising bundles. Appellant noted that these duties

caused stress to her lower back. 

By decision dated August 26, 2020, OWCP modified its March 26, 2020 decision, finding 

that the evidence established medical diagnoses of lumbar intervertebral disc disorder and lumbar 

sprain in connection with her accepted factors of federal employment. However, the claim 

remained denied as the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a causal relationship 

between her diagnosed lumbar conditions and the accepted factors of her 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 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 

3

Supra note 1.
4

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; 

(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 

casually 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 upon a complete factual 

and medical background, 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 incident.9

ANALYSIS

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

In his March 10, 2020 report, Dr. Rogers discussed appellant’s medical history, reviewed 

diagnostic reports, and provided findings on physical examination of her lumbar spine and lower 

extremities. He discussed the mechanism of injury for this occupational disease claim. 10 

Dr. Rogers explained that loading, torque, and local stresses arising from appellant’s repetitive 

motion activities such as putting out bundled advertising pages weighing between 50 to 100 

pounds, carrying packages weighing as much as 150 pounds up flights of stairs, and standing and 

holding heavy bundles of advertisements while distributing them to individual boxes exceeded the 

amount of lifting her lumbar discs, tissue fascia, and ligaments could tolerate. He opined that this 

4 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); JoeD. 

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); 

DeloresC.Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 T.W., Docket No. 20-0767 (issued January 13, 2021); L.D., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); S.C., 

Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019).

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 See S.B., Docket No. 20-1458 (issued March 5, 2021); L.H., Docket No. 17-0947 (issued March 8, 2018).
5

activity contributed to the development of intervertebral disc disorder with radiculopathy and 

lumbar sprain sequelae. 

The Board finds that the report of Dr. Rogers is sufficient to require further development 

of the medical evidence in this claim. Dr. Rogers exhibited a comprehensive understanding of 

appellant’s history of injury and provided a rationalized explanation as to how the accepted factors 

of federal employment resulted in her diagnosed lumbar conditions. The Board has long held that 

it is unnecessary that the evidence of record in a case be so conclusive as to suggest a causal 

connection beyond all possible doubt. Rather, the evidence required is only that which is necessary 

to convince the adjudicator that the conclusion drawn is rational, sound, and logical. 11 Dr. Rogers’

medical opinions as set forth in his reports require further development of appellant’s claim.12

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 

responsibility for the development of the evidence.13 OWCP has an obligation to see that justice 

is done.14

On remand, OWCP shall refer appellant to a specialist in the appropriate field of medicine, 

along with the case record and a statement of accepted facts, for an examination and a rationalized 

medical opinion as to whether the accepted factors of federal employment either caused or 

aggravated her diagnosed conditions.15 If the second opinion physician disagrees with the 

explanations provided by Dr. Rogers, he or she must provide a fully-rationalized explanation as to 

why the accepted employment factors were insufficient to have caused or aggravated appellant’s 

diagnosed conditions. 

Furthermore, OWCP’s procedures provide that cases should be administratively combined 

when correct adjudication of the issues depends on frequent cross-referencing between files.16 

Appellant has a previously accepted claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx916 for injuries to her 

cervical and thoracic spine. Therefore, for full and fair adjudication, OWCP must administratively 

combine the case record in the present claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx353 with OWCP File 

No. xxxxxx916 prior to referral to a second opinion physician. This will allow OWCP to consider

11 T.F., Docket No. 19-1900 (issued October 27, 2020); W.M., Docket No. 17-144 (issued November 7, 2017); 

E.M., Docket No. 11-1106 (issued December 28, 2011).

12 See T.F., id.; J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020); D.S., Docket No. 17-1359 (issued May 3, 

2019); X.V., Docket No. 18-1360 (issued April 12, 2019); C.M., Docket No. 17-1977 (issued January 29, 2019); 

WilliamJ. Cantrell, 34 ECAB 1223 (1983).

13 See id.;see also A.P., Docket No. 17-0813 (issued January 3, 2018); Jimmy Hammons, 51 ECAB 219, 223(1999).

14 See B.C., Docket No. 15-1853 (issued January 19, 2016); E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 2010); 

John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354(1989).

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

C.C., Docket No. 19-1631 (issued February 12, 2020).

16 S.B., supra note 10; see Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims,File Maintenance and Management, 

Chapter 2.400.8c (February 2000).
6

all relevant claim files in adjudicating this claim.17 Following this and other such further 

development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision on appellant’s 

occupational disease claim.

CONCLUSION

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 26, 2020 decision of the Office of 

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

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: April 4, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

17 Id. at Chapter 2.400.8(c)(1); W.W., Docket No. 19-0884 (issued June16, 2020); L.P., Docket Nos. 18-1558, 18-

1568 (issued June21, 2019); L.S., Docket Nos. 17-1863, 17-1867, 17-1868 (issued April18, 2018); W.S., Docket No. 

15-0969 (issued October 5, 2015); C.C., Docket No. 14-1576 (issued March 9, 2015).