United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.J., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, ROBINS 

AIR FORCE BASE, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1371

Issued: June 8, 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 September 29, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 16, 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 his burden of proof to establish a medical condition 

causally related to the accepted May 14, 2022 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 27, 2022 appellant, then a 46-year-old engineering mechanic, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 14, 2022 he aggravated his preexisting back 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

condition when identifying and cleaning up after a water leak while in the performance of duty. 

He did not immediately stop work.

OWCP received a position description for an engineering technician.

In a development letter dated June 13, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

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

questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a report from Dr. Nathan M. Jones, a Boardcertified physiatrist, dated May 16, 2022, who treated him for a work injury that occurred on 

May 14, 2022 when he was cleaning up a leak of 10 to 15 gallons of water with a mop, bucket, 

and shop vacuum. He reported dull pain radiating from his back down the right posterior thigh 

and lateral leg. Appellant’s history was significant for nonoccupational chronic back pain for the 

past four to five years. Findings on physical examination revealed tenderness to palpation of the 

thoracolumbar spine at L5-S2, limited range of motion in all planes, decreased response to tactile 

stimulation of the upper L2 aspect of the right thigh, and decreased sensory responses to the right 

lateral leg and dorsum of the foot at L5. Dr. Jones diagnosed radiculopathy of the lumbosacral 

region and opined that the mechanism of injury was mopping and vacuuming water from a roof 

leak. He released appellant to sedentary work with no driving government vehicles. 

Dr. Marvin E. Taylor, a Board-certified physiatrist, treated appellant on May 16, 2022 for 

a work-related back injury that occurred on May 14, 2022. Appellant reported mopping, lifting a 

water bucket, and vacuuming water after a leak at work and experiencing a dull pain radiating 

from his posterior thigh down his lateral right leg. His history was significant for chronic back

pain forfour to five years. Dr. Taylor diagnosed low back pain and obesity. He released appellant 

to modified-duty work. In reports dated June 6 and 15, 2022, Dr. Taylor treated appellant in follow

up for radiating low back and right buttock pain that began on May 14, 2022 while he was 

mopping, lifting a water bucket, and vacuuming water after a leak. 

On June 14, 2022 Dr. George S. Stefanis, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, treated appellant 

for low back pain radiating to the buttocks, which began suddenly at work on May 14, 2022. 

Appellant reported lifting a container of water, which caused pain down the right leg that became 

worse over time. He noted findings on examination of tenderness to palpation of the lumbar spine, 

muscle spasms, straight-leg raising test positive bilaterally, and tenderness to palpation of the 

buttocks. Dr. Stefanis returned appellant to light-duty work with no lifting over 10 pounds. In a 

disability certificate of even date, he returned appellant to a desk job with no lifting over 10 pounds. 

On July 20, 2022 Emily Birdsong, a nurse practitioner, treated appellant for low back pain 

and tingling in the legs. Appellant related that on May 14, 2022 he was mopping and vacuuming 

a leak at work and lifted a container of water and felt pain radiating down his right leg. He noted 

that after the May 14, 2022 employment incident he experienced progressive pain in the right 

lower extremity and lower back with bilateral muscle spasms and radiating buttock pain. 

Ms. Birdsong released appellant to a desk job with no lifting over 10 pounds. 
3

By decision dated August 2, 2022, OWCP accepted that the employment incident occurred 

as alleged, but denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that the medical evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish causal relationship between his diagnosed conditions and 

the accepted May 14, 2022 employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements 

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

A July 14, 2022 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the lumbar spine revealed

multifactorial multilevel mild-to marked-spondylosis with findings worse at L5-S1 with central 

canal stenosis, possible bilateral lateral recess stenosis from a large diffuse symmetric bulge with 

concurrent mild central protrusion, epidural lipomatosis causing mild central canal stenosis of the 

thecal sac, ligamentum flavum thickening, moderate degenerative disc disease, marked bilateral 

neural foraminal narrowing with pinching the exiting L5 nerve roots, and mild-to-moderate 

bulge/protrusion at T12-L1 slightly contacting the cord.

On August 8, 2022 Dr. Stefanis noted treating appellant since 2008 for low back pain 

radiating down his left leg that was treated conservatively and did not interfere with his work 

duties. On May 14, 2022 appellant reported low back pain radiating down both legs when he 

picked up a container full of water at work. He opined that the most recent incident aggravated 

appellant’s preexisting condition and possibly made his condition worse. Dr. Stefanis indicated 

that an MRI scan of the lumbar spine was performed in July 2022, which revealed a worsening 

condition at levels L5-S1 with marked foraminal and compression of both exiting nerve roots. He 

opined that based on appellant’s history the new injury was the “most likely” source of symptoms 

that he was currently experiencing.

On August 18, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration.

By decision dated September 16, 2022, OWCP denied modification of the August 2, 2022 

decision.

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 

2

Id.

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

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 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. First, 

the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the 

employment incident at the time and place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury. 6

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical 

opinion evidence.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 

specific employment incident identified by the employee.8

In a case where a preexisting condition involving the same part of the body is present and 

the issue of causal relationship therefore involves aggravation, acceleration, or precipitation, the 

physician must provide a rationalized medical opinion that differentiates between the effects of the 

work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition.9

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted May 14, 2022 employment incident.

On May 16, 2022 Dr. Jones treated appellant for back pain radiating down the right 

posterior thigh and lateral leg that began on May 14, 2022 when he was cleaning up after a leak at 

work. He diagnosed radiculopathy of the lumbosacral region and noted the mechanism of injury 

was mopping and vacuuming water. Dr. Taylor treated appellant on May 16, 2022 for a workrelated back injury that occurred on May 14, 2022 and diagnosed low back pain and obesity. 

Similarly, in reports dated June 6 and 15, 2022, he treated appellant for low back and right buttock 

pain radiating down the right leg that began on May 14, 2022 when he was mopping, lifting a 

water bucket, and vacuuming water from a leak. Likewise, on June 14, 2022, Dr. Stefanis treated 

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.J., Docket No. 19-0461 (issued August 11, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

7

S.S.,Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April24, 2019); RobertG. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

8 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).

9 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013).
5

appellant for low back pain radiating to the buttocks, which started on May 14, 2022 when he 

picked up a container of water at work. While Drs. Jones, Taylor, and Stefanis indicated that 

appellant’s low back condition was work related, they failed to provide medical rationale 

explaining the basis of their opinion. Without explaining, physiologically, how the specific 

employment incident or employment factors caused or aggravated the diagnosed condition, 

Drs. Jones, Taylor, and Stefanis’ opinions on causal relationship are of limited probative value and 

insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.10 

On August 8, 2022 Dr. Stefanis noted treating appellant since 2008 for low back pain 

radiating down his left leg. Appellant reported low back pain radiating down both legs when he 

picked up a container full of water at work on May 14, 2022. He noted that this incident 

aggravated his preexisting condition and “possibly” made his condition worse. Dr. Stefanis opined 

that the new injury was the “most likely” source of symptoms that he was currently experiencing.

The Board has held that medical opinions that are speculative or equivocal are of diminished 

probative value.11 Therefore, this medical report is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

Appellant submitted a report from a nurse practitioner. However, certain healthcare 

providers such as nurse practitioners are not considered “physician[s]” as defined under FECA.12 

Consequently, their medical findings and/or opinions will not suffice for purposes of establishing 

entitlement to FECA benefits.

13

 

Appellant also submitted an MRI scan. The Board, however, has held that diagnostic 

studies, standing alone, lack probative value on the issue of causal relationship as they do not 

provide an opinion as to whether the employment incident caused any of the diagnosed 

conditions.14 This evidence is, therefore, insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

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

related to the accepted May 14, 2022 employment incident, the Board finds that appellant has not 

met his burden of proof.

10 G.L., Docket No. 18-1057 (issued April14, 2020); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

11 H.A., Docket No. 18-1455 (issued August 23, 2019).

12 Section 8102(2) of FECA provides as follows: (2) 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. § 8102(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims,

Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); David P. 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); see alsoB.D.,Docket No. 22-0503 (issued September 27, 2022 (nurse practitioners are not considered 

physicians as defined under FECA and their medical findings and/or opinions will not suffice for purposes of 

establishing entitlement to FECA benefits); L.S., Docket No. 19-1231 (issued March 30, 2021) (a nurse practitioner 

is not considered a physician as defined under FECA).

13 Id.

14 C.B., Docket No. 20-0464 (issued July 21, 2020).
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 his burden of proof to establish a medical 

condition causally related to the accepted May 14, 2022 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 16, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 8, 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