United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Detroit, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0243

Issued: June 12, 2023

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

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 6, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 14, 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical

condition in connection with the accepted factors of her federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 1, 2022 appellant, then a 29-year-old mail processing clerk, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed severe worsening lower back 

pain due to factors of her federal employment, including pulling, pushing, lifting, and bending of 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

her abdomen. She related that her work duties aggravated her back pain over the years, and on 

January 21, 2022 her condition was triggered when she lifted heavy bundles of magazines. 

Appellant noted that she first became aware of her condition on January 21, 2022 and realized 

their relation to her federal employment on January 22, 2022. She did not stop work.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a January 24, 2022 note from Dr. Farzin 

Namei, a Board-certified family physician, holding her off work until February 7, 2022. In a 

referral order of even date, Dr. Namei diagnosed low back pain and referred her for physical 

therapy. 

In a February 8, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

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

and provided a factual questionnaire for her completion. In a separate development letter of even 

date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide additional information including 

comments from a knowledgeable supervisor. It afforded both parties 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence. Appellant did not respond.

By decision dated March 15, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that she had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish the implicated factors of her 

federal employment. It noted that she did not respond to its developmental questionnaire. 

Consequently, OWCP found that appellant had not met the requirements to establish an injury as 

defined by FECA.

On March 23, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration of the March 15, 2022 decision 

and submitted additional evidence.

In a January 24, 2022 work excuse note, Dr. Namei related that he treated appellant for a 

back injury sustained at work. He diagnosed extreme low back pain, and noted that she 

experienced limited range of motion, and was unable to stand for long periods of time or lift 

anything. Dr. Namei referred appellant to physical therapy and held her off work until 

April 1, 2022.

In a January 24, 2022 note, Dr. Namei related that he treated appellant for work-related

back injuries which were caused by repetitive and strenuous heavy lifting, bending, and pushing. 

He diagnosed extreme low back pain and explained that her diagnosis was aggravated by pushing 

and pulling heavy bundled packages while performing her daily work duties. Dr. Namei related 

that he originally began treating appellant for a work-related injury in April 2016, and noted that

prolonged standing, lifting, and bending had lengthened her healing time. He indicated that she

should refrain from work until she has had sufficient time to recover.

In return-to-work notes dated March 7, 2022, Dr. Namei noted that he treated appellant 

that day and held her off work until May 4, 2022.

By decision dated June 14, 2022, OWCP modified its March 15, 2022 decision to find that 

the employment factors occurred, as alleged. However, the claim remained denied, as appellant

had not submitted evidence containing a medical diagnosis from a qualified physician in 

connection with the accepted factors of her federal employment. Consequently, OWCP found that 

the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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,3that 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.4 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.5

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, an employee must submit the following: (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 causally related to the employment factors identified by the employee.6

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.

7

 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 the specific employment factor(s) identified by the employee. 8

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted factors of her federal employment.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted records dated January 24, 2022, in which

Dr. Namei diagnosed low back pain and related that he treated her for a work-related back injury 

2

Supra note 1.

3 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). 

4 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).

5 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). 

6 T.D., Docket No. 20-0921 (issued November 12, 2020); M.S.,Docket No. 18-1554 (issued February 8, 2019). See 

also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994);Victor J. Woodhams, 41 

ECAB 345 (1989).

7

S.A., Docket No. 18-0399 (issued October 16, 2018); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

8 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, supra

note 6.
4

caused by repetitive and strenuous heavy lifting, bending, and pushing. The Board has consistently 

held that pain is a symptom and not a compensable medical diagnosis.9 Accordingly, Dr. Namei’s

reports are insufficient to satisfy appellant’s burden of proof.10

Similarly, appellant submitted January 24 and March 7, 2022 return-to-work notes from

Dr. Namei holding her off work until May 4, 2022. The Board has held that a medical report is of 

no probative value if it does not provide a firm diagnosis of a particular medical condition. 11 As

Dr. Namei did not diagnose a medical condition in these notes, this evidence is insufficient to 

establish appellant’s claim.

12

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

in connection with the accepted factors of her federal employment, 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 met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed

medical condition in connection with the accepted factors of her federal employment. 

9

J.P., Docket No. 20-0381 (issued July 28, 2020); S.L., Docket No. 19-1536 (issued June 26, 2020); D.Y., Docket 

No. 20-0112 (issued June 25, 2020); Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340 (2003). See also Larry M. Leudtke, Docket 

03-1564 (issued September 2, 2003) (where the Board found that headachedescribed a symptomand did not constitute 

a firm diagnosis of a medical condition).

10 R.H., Docket No. 21-1382 (issued March 7, 2022); S.E., Docket No. 21-0666 (issued December 28, 2021).

11 A.R., Docket No. 19-1560 (issued March 2, 2020); V.B., Docket No. 19-0643 (issued September 6, 2019).

12 Id.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 14, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 12, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board