United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Detroit, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0957

Issued: December 8, 2021

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 June 9, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 3, 2021 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 his burden of proof to establish a lower back 

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 8, 2021 appellant, then a 55-year-old tractor-trailer operator, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he experienced lower back pain due to a 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

strain while in the performance of duty. He noted that he first became aware of his condition and

realized its relation to his federal employment on March 4, 2021. Appellant did not stop work. 

In an undated statement, appellant explained that he developed pain in the left side of his 

lower back, which had been present for several months. He initially assumed it was related to 

arthritis in his back; however, he subsequently underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 

scan that revealed a pinch nerve. Appellant asserted that his condition was a result of the nature 

of his work, which included unloading heavy mail racks weighing up to 400 pounds, as well as 

repetitive twisting and bending motions.

In a development letter dated March 11, 2021, OWCP informed appellant that it had 

received no evidence in support of his occupational disease claim. It advised him of the evidence 

necessary to establish his claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion regarding a 

description of his employment activities. OWCP also requested he provide a narrative medical 

report from appellant’s treating physician, which included a detailed description of findings and a 

diagnosis, explaining how the claimed employment incident caused, contributed to, or aggravated 

his medical conditions. It afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

In a February 11, 2021 note, Dr. Faiz Mansour, a Board-certified internal medicine 

specialist, related that appellant presented with complaints of chronic and constant lower back pain 

radiating into his left lower extremity. He described the pain as deep, sharp, throbbing and 

stabbing in nature. Appellant alleged that he had been experiencing the pain for years and that it 

had slightly worsened. Dr. Mansour identified aggravating factors of movement and palpation of 

the painful area.

On February 25, 2021 Dr. Paul John Arpasi, a Board-certified radiologist, performed an

MRI scan of appellant’s lower back, which revealed intervertebral disc height loss and desiccation 

along the posterior aspect and broad-based disc bulge and facet arthropathy resulting in moderate 

right and severe left neural foraminal narrowing with impingement of the exiting L5 nerve roots. 

He diagnosed spondylosis, intervertebral disc disorders, and radiculopathy of the lumbar region, 

as well as muscle spasm of the back. 

On March 26, 2021 Dr. Braden Boji, a Board-certified physiatrist, noted complaints of leftsided, greater than right side, low back pain, radiating into his left thigh and gluteal area. He 

related that appellant’s pain began in 2020 while unloading a trailer containing heavy carts of mail. 

Dr. Boji referred appellant for physical therapy treatment and recommended a follow-up visit in 

six to eight weeks. 

In an April 1, 2021 response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, appellant detailed a 

history of back pain beginning in March or April 2020. He noted that his job responsibilities 

included loading racks and containers of mail weighing as much 300 pounds. Appellant described 

the process of unloading the racks as swiveling each rack out of position and pushing them off the 

trailer. He indicated that he did not initially report any pain to his supervisor until his pinched 

nerve diagnosis. Appellant asserted that his outside activities are very limited. He noted that he 

was only seeking compensation for medical treatment related to his alleged employment injury.
3

By decision dated June 3, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a lower back condition

causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

A claimant 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,

3

that 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, 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 

causally related to the identified employment factors.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 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 factor.

8

2

Supra note 1.

3 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued December 13, 2019); 

Joe D. 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); 

DeloresC.Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

6 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).

7

I.J., Docket No. 19-1343 (issued February 26, 2020); T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008); RobertG. Morris, 48 ECAB 

238 (1996).

8 D.C., Docket No. 19-1093 (issued June25, 2020); see L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018). See 

also 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).
4

ANALYSIS

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

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

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a report from Dr. Mansour dated February 11, 

2021 who noted appellant’s complaints of chronic and constant lower back pain aggravated by 

movement and palpation. However, Dr. Mansour did not offer an opinion on the cause of 

appellant’s back pain. 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. 9 Thus, this 

evidence is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

Likewise, Dr. Boji, in his March 26, 2021 note, indicated that appellant had complaints of 

left-sided lower back pain radiating into his left thigh and gluteal area, which he asserted began in 

2020 while unloading heavy trailers of mail. However, as noted above, a report that does not offer 

an opinion on the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal 

relationship.

10

 As such, Dr. Boji’s report is also of no probative value. 

The remaining evidence of record includes a February 25, 2021 MRI scan interpreted by

Dr. Arpasi. The Board has held that diagnostic tests, standing alone, lack probative value on the 

issue of causal relationship as they do not address the relationship between the accepted 

employment factors, and a diagnosed condition.11 For this reason, this report is insufficient to 

meet appellant’s burden of proof.

As there is no rationalized medical evidence explaining how appellant’s employment duties 

caused or aggravated his diagnosed conditions, the Board finds that he 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 lower back 

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

9

S.M., Docket No. 19-0556 (issued September 6, 2019); L.B., id. ; D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

10 Id. 

11 See W.M.,Docket No. 19-1853 (issued May 13, 2020); L.F., Docket No. 19-1905 (issued April10, 2020).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 3, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: December 8, 2021

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