United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

San Juan, PR, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0946

Issued: December 18, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

James D. Muirhead, 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 June 30, 2023 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a February 2, 2023 

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 medical condition 

causally related to the accepted August 28, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 2, 2020 appellant, then a 55-year-old postal police officer, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 28, 2020 he sustained right lower back pain 

while transporting large mailing containers using a hand truck in the performance of duty. He 

stopped work on August 28, 2020.

Appellant submitted work excuse notes from Dr. Eric R. Javier, a physiatrist, dated

August 31 and September 16 and 25, 2020.

In a development letter dated October 5, 2020, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

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

A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of appellant’s lumbar spine dated September 1, 

2020 demonstrated diffuse degenerative changes, and a suggestion to correlate for nerve root 

compression symptoms at L5.

In a letter dated October 21, 2020, Dr. Javier noted that appellant had been under his care 

since September 14, 2020 for chronic low back pain secondary to L4-L5 and L5-S1 degenerative 

disc disease with a degenerative facet joint causing foraminal narrowing. He opined that appellant 

experienced an aggravation of his chronic degenerative condition that worsened while he 

performed his duties at work. 

By decision dated November 10, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between his diagnosed 

conditions and the accepted August 28, 2020 employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that 

the requirements had not been met to establish that he sustained an injury and/or medical condition 

causally related to the accepted employment incident.

On November 19, 2020 appellant requested a review of the written record before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

In a report dated November 19, 2020, Dr. Javier explained that appellant had been 

instructed to assist with large cases used to transport mail, resulting in injury to his lower back. 

He opined that there was a causal relationship between this incident and aggravation of appellant’s 

lower back condition. Dr. Javier further noted that patients with chronic degenerative changes 

frequently develop exacerbations of pain, spasm, loss of motion, and or dysfunction, and may 

suffer aggravation of the condition and develop further symptoms with trauma or injuries, along 

with progressive degenerative changes secondary to the abnormal forces of the spine or joints. In 

an accompanying duty status report (Form CA-17) dated November 9, 2020, Dr.Javier noted work 

restrictions of lifting/carrying no more than 20 pounds continuously or 35 pounds intermittently.
3

In form reports dated December 10, 2020, and January 21 and February 10, 2021,

Dr. Javier diagnosed degenerative lumbar joint/disc disease. He recommended continued work 

restrictions.

By decision dated March 18, 2021, the hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

November 10, 2020 decision.

OWCP thereafter received a September 4, 2020 report from Dr. Ariel Rivera Marquez, a 

specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Dr. Marquez related that appellant was seen 

because he hurt his back lifting heavy objects on August 28, 2020. Appellant was assessed with 

cervical and lumbar pain due to spasm and early degenerative disc disease, now superimposed on 

a lumbar strain.

On December 27, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and 

submitted additional evidence. In a May 27, 2021 report, Dr. Javier noted that appellant had been 

under his care since September 14, 2020 due to aggravation of degenerative changes to the 

cervical, thoracic and lumbar areas. He noted that appellant had been previously treated by

Dr. Rivera for cervical and lumbar pain in the presence of degenerative disc disease, since 

June 3, 2020. Dr. Javier further noted that appellant had been evaluated in 2010 by another 

physician for a similar condition. At that time, appellant had x-rays obtained that demonstrated 

similar changes along the thoracic and lumbar spine. Dr. Javier opined that appellant’s condition 

was aggravated on August 28, 2020 when he lifted large containers used to transport mail while in 

the performance of duty. He opined that appellant’s lower back condition was more likely than 

not aggravated by this incident. 

By decision dated February 2, 2023, OWCP denied modification of its March 18, 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 

States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time 

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

3

Id.

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

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
4

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. 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 an injury.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 incident 

identified by the employee.9

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted August 28, 2020 employment incident.

In support of his traumatic injury claim of September 2, 2020, appellant submitted letters 

and reports from Dr. Javier. On May 27, 2021 Dr. Javier noted that appellant had been under his 

care since September 14, 2020 due to aggravation of degenerative changes to the cervical, thoracic, 

and lumbar areas. He noted that appellant had been previously treated for cervical and lumbar 

pain in the presence of degenerative disc disease, since June 3, 2020. Dr. Javier opined that 

appellant’s condition was aggravated on August 28, 2020 when he lifted large containers used to 

transport mail while in the performance of duty. He further opined that appellant’s lower back 

condition was more likely than not aggravated by this incident. The May 27, 2021 letter was 

substantially similar to prior letters from Dr. Javier dated October 21 and November 19, 2020. 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 

the accepted employment incident.10 Further, the Board has also held that a medical opinion is of 

limited probative value if it is conclusory in nature.

11

 While Dr. Javier’s May 27, 2021 letter 

concluded that appellant’s diagnosed conditions were causally related to the accepted employment 

incident, he did not explain with rationale how the accepted employment incident physiologically 

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); RobertG. 

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 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).

11 C.M., Docket No. 19-0360 (issued February 25, 2020). 
5

caused the injury.12 As such, these reports are of limited probative value, and insufficient to 

establish appellant’s claim. 

In a September 4, 2020 report, Dr. Marquez related that appellant was seen because he hurt 

his back lifting heavy objects on August 28, 2020. Appellant also submitted form reports dated 

December 10, 2020, January 21 and February 10, 2021; a Form CA-17 dated November 9, 2020; 

and work excuse notes dated August 31 and September 16 and 25, 2020 from Dr. Javier. These 

reports, however, do not include a medical opinion regarding the cause of appellant’s diagnosed 

condition(s). 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.13 

This evidence is therefore insufficient to establish the claim.

Appellant also submitted a diagnostic test report dated September 1, 2020. The Board has 

held that diagnostic test reports, standing alone, lack probative value as they do not provide an 

opinion on causal relationship between the employment incident and a diagnosed condition. 14

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

related to the accepted August 28, 2020 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 medical 

condition causally related to the accepted August 28, 2020 employment incident.

12 See T.F., Docket No. 20-0260 (issued June 12, 2020);D.J., Docket No. 18-0694 (issued March 16, 2020); K.G., 

Docket No. 18-1598 (issued January 7, 2020); K.O., Docket No. 18-1422 (issued March 19, 2019).

13 D.C., Docket No. 19-1093 (issued June25, 2020); see L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018); D.K., 

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

14 T.H., Docket No. 18-1736 (issued March 13, 2019).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 2, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 18, 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