United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bellmawr, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0710

Issued: August 3, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant1

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 April 7, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an October 25, 

2021 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 her burden of proof to establish a cervical condition 

causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 5, 2021 appellant, then a 49-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she herniated a cervical disc causally related to factors of her 

federal employment. She attributed her condition to carrying a mailbag weighing up to 25 pounds 

on her neck and upper back for over 21 years. Appellant indicated that she became aware of her 

condition on August 26, 2020 and attributed it to her federal employment on December 8, 2020. 

She did not stop work.3

In a January 5, 2021 statement, appellant described the work factors that she believed had 

caused her condition, including carrying mail on her back for over 20 years. 

Electrodiagnostic testing performed on September 27, 2018 revealed irritation of the left 

low cervical dorsal nerve root and findings consistent with carpal tunnel syndrome. 

In a development letter dated February 16, 2021, OWCP advised appellant of the type of 

evidence needed to establish her occupational disease claim, including a report from her attending 

physician addressing the causal relationship between those exposures and the claimed conditions. 

It provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond to 

its request.

Thereafter, appellant submitted a report dated August 26, 2020 from Dr. Vincent M. 

Padula, an osteopath. Dr. Padula evaluated appellant for bilateral neck pain radiating through the 

upper extremities into the hands. He noted that she had difficulty carrying a mailbag and parcels 

and that performing repetitive upper extremity movements like sorting mail caused “severe 

burning in her neck as well as tingling down the upper extremities into her hands. ” Dr. Padula 

reviewed the findings from an October 24, 2018 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. He 

diagnosed a cervical disc herniation, cervical foraminal stenosis, cervical facet syndrome, and 

cervical radiculopathy. On September 3, 2020 Dr. Padula administered a cervical epidural steroid 

injection.4

In a report dated September 15, 2020, Dr. Padula discussed appellant’s continued 

symptoms of neck pain worse on the right. He noted that she had difficulty turning her head while 

driving and carrying and delivering mail. Dr. Padula diagnosed cervical radiculopathy, cervical 

spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy, and chronic pain syndrome.

3 OWCP previously accepted that on January 24, 2018 appellant sustained a left hand contusion, abrasion, and 

sprain, and a left wrist contusion, abrasion, and sprain, assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx790. It further accepted her 

March 2020 occupational disease claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx773.

4 Dr. Padula provided appellant with epidural steroid injections from September to December 2020. 
3

In a report dated December 8, 2020, Dr. Padula found that appellant’s symptoms had 

improved with cervical blocks. He indicated that she was “a mail carrier and has a walking route, 

she has to carry a large parcel over her shoulder which exacerbates her symptoms.” Dr. Padula 

diagnosed cervical radiculopathy, cervical panniculitis, cervical spondylosis, and chronic pain 

syndrome.

By decision dated April 20, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. 

It found that she had not established a medical condition causally related to the accepted 

employment factors.

On May 17, 2021 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review. 

In a report dated August 24, 2021, Dr. Padula advised that appellant had “a progressive 

history of cervical and lumbar spine pain with numbness, tingling, and paresthesias into [the] 

bilateral hands.” He noted that her symptoms increased when she performed her work duties.

Dr. Padula reviewed appellant’s job description, which included repetitive hand activities and 

lifting up to 80 pounds. He diagnosed cervical radiculopathy, a disc bulge at C5-6, a herniation 

on the left at C4-5, facet joint hypertrophy at C2-7, a disc herniation at L4-5, and a disc bulge at 

L3-4. Dr. Padula discussed the results of diagnostic testing. He related, “I feel [appellant’s] 

occupation as a mail carrier, carrying large packages as well as a mailbag on her shoulders, have 

and will certainly exacerbate her underlying conditions including cervical facet arthropathy, 

cervical disc herniations, and cervical radiculopathy.” 

A telephonic hearing was held on September 9, 2021. Appellant described her work duties 

and noted that on August 25, 2020 she felt a significant pain between her shoulder blades but

continued working. She related that she experienced continual pain from carrying a bag weighing

up to 80 pounds on her left shoulder. 

In a report dated September 16, 2021, a physician assistant excused appellant from work 

for the period September 16 to 20, 2021. 

By decision dated October 25, 2021, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

April 20, 2021 decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 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 filed within the applicable time limitation 

period of FECA,6that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged, and 

that any disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to 

5

Supra note 2.

6

S.M., Docket No. 21-0937 (issued December 21, 2021); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 

59 ECAB 178 (2007); JoeD. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).
4

the employment injury.7 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.8

In an occupational disease claim, appellant’s burden of proof requires submission of 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.9

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish causal 

relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.10 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 explaining the nature of the 

relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors identified by 

the claimant.11

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

On August 24, 2021 Dr. Padula advised that appellant had a history of worsening pain in 

her lumbar and cervical spine with numbness and tingling in her hands bilaterally. He noted that 

her symptoms increased when performing the duties of her employment. Dr. Padula reviewed 

appellant’s work duties and diagnosed cervical radiculopathy, a disc bulge at C5-6, a herniation 

on the left at C4-5, facet joint hypertrophy at C2-7, a disc herniation at L4-5, and a disc bulge at 

L3-4. He opined that working as a mail carrier, particularly carryinglarge packages and a mailbag 

on her shoulders, had and would continue to exacerbate her underlying cervical facet arthropathy, 

cervical disc herniations, and cervical radiculopathy. While Dr. Padula provided an affirmative 

opinion on causal relationship, he did not provide medical rationale sufficient to explain how or 

why he believed appellant’s employment duties caused or aggravated the diagnosed conditions. 

The Board has held that medical opinion evidence should offer a medically-sound explanation of 

7

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

8 M.T., Docket No. 20-1814 (issued June 24, 2022); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., 

Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

9

S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008).

10 K.R., Docket No. 21-0822 (issued June 28, 2022); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April24, 2019); T.H., 59 

ECAB 388 (2008).

11 G.S., Docket No. 22-0036 (issued June 29, 2022); M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); I.J., 

59 ECAB 408 (2008).
5

how the specific employment incident or work factors physiologically caused the injury. 12 

Without this explanation regarding causal relationship, Dr. Padula’s report is insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof to establish her claim.13

In an August 26, 2020 report, Dr. Padula discussed appellant’s complaints of bilateral neck 

pain radiating into the upper extremities. He noted that she related that her symptoms increased 

when she carried her mailbag or parcels and that performing repetitive work duties caused burning 

in her neck with radiation into her hands. Dr. Padula diagnosed cervical disc herniation, cervical 

foraminal stenosis, cervical facet syndrome, and cervical radiculopathy. In reports dated 

September 15 and December 8, 2020, he again discussed her complaints of neck pain with 

increased symptoms delivering mail. Dr. Padula diagnosed cervical radiculopathy, cervical 

spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy, and chronic pain syndrome. On December 8, 

2020 he also diagnosed cervical panniculitis. In these reports, however, Dr. Padula did not

specifically address the cause of the diagnosed conditions. 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 Accordingly, these reports are insufficient to 

meet appellant’s burden of proof to establish her claim.

Appellant submitted a September 16, 2021 report from a physician assistant. The Board 

has held that medical reports signed solely by a physician assistant lack probative value as they 

are not considered physicians as defined under FECA and are, therefore, not competent to provide 

a medical opinion.15 Consequently, this report is not sufficient for the purpose of establishing 

entitlement to FECA benefits.

Appellant further submitted the results of electrodiagnostic testing performed on 

September 27, 2018. The Board has held that diagnostic reports, standing alone, lack probative 

value on the issue of causal relationship as they do not provide an opinio n as to whether the 

accepted employment incident caused a diagnosed condition. 16 This evidence, therefore, is also 

insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

12 See T.H., Docket No. 21-0935 (issued February24, 2022); H.A., Docket No. 18-1466 (issued August23, 2019).

13 W.R., Docket No. 19-0460 (issued May 18, 2020).

14 J.H., Docket No. 20-1645 (issued August11, 2021); P.C., Docket No. 20-0855 (issued November 23, 2020);

L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

15 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that physician “includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, 

optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law.”

5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal 

Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); L.T., Docket No. 19-0145 (issued June 3, 2019); T.H., Docket No. 

18-1736 (issued March 13, 2019); see DavidP. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006) (lay individuals such as 

physician assistants, nurses and physical therapists are not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA).

16 S.W., Docket No. 21-1105 (issued December 17, 2021); W.L., Docket No. 20-1589 (issued August 26, 2021).
6

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 cervical 

condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 25, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 3, 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