United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Birmingham, AL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1200

Issued: June 5, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, 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 August 16, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 7, 2022 

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.3

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.

3 The Board notes that following the July 7, 2022 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP.

However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the 

case record that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence notbefore OWCP will not be considered 

by the Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this 

additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

ISSUE

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

causally related to the accepted September 18, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.4 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as 

follows. 

On November 23, 2020 appellant, then a 40-year-old assistant rural carrier, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 18, 2020 she injured her lower 

back when a chair she was sitting in suddenly dropped while in the performance of duty.5 

Appellant did not stop work.

In a November 30, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical 

evidence necessary to establish her claim and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP 

afforded appellant 30 days to respond. 

OWCP subsequently received a September 18, 2020 emergency room report by

Dr. Anitricia Lumpkin, an osteopathic physician Board-certified in emergency and internal 

medicine, who described the September 18, 2020 employment incident and noted that appellant 

had a history of back injury. Dr. Lumpkin provided examination findings and assessed 

degenerative disc disease at L5-S1. 

In a September 21, 2020 return to work note, Dr. George Thomas, a family medicine 

specialist, reported that appellant was seen in his office on that date and could return to work on 

September 28, 2020. 

OWCP also received a letter dated July 2, 2020, wherein Dr. Thomas noted appellant’s 

June 23, 2019 and April 19, 2020 back injuries. He explained that a lumbar spine magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan demonstrated increased loss in disc height in L5-S1, a mild broadbased disc bulge, and mild left foraminal narrowing. 

In a November 2, 2020 letter, Dr. Thomas noted appellant’s April 19, 2020 back injury and 

indicated that she was seen in his office on September 18, 2020 because she had injured her back

again. He reported that she was referred to the hospital for evaluation. 

By decision dated January 5, 2021, OWCP accepted that the September 18, 2020 

employment incident occurred as alleged and that a medical condition was diagnosed; however, it 

4 Docket No. 21-1196 (issued March 16, 2022).

5 OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx425. Appellant has a previously accepted traumatic 

injury claim related to a June 23, 2019 employment incident. OWCP assigned that claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx684 

and accepted it for lumbar back strain. Appellant also previously filed a traumatic injury claim under OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx088 for a back injury related to an April 19, 2020 employment incident. 
3

denied her claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal 

relationship between her diagnosed condition and the accepted employment incident.

On January 14, 2021 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, which was held on April 12, 2021.

In a report dated January 27, 2021, Dr. Timothy Holt, an orthopedic surgeon, indicated that 

appellant was evaluated for low back pain that radiated down her legs. He noted the previous 

June 23, 2019 and April 19, 2020 back injuries and described the September 18, 2020 employment 

incident. On physical examination of appellant’s back, Dr. Holt observed positive straight leg 

raise, cram, and Lasegue sign testing bilaterally. He assessed lumbar radiculopathy, cervicalgia, 

lumbar spine instabilities, and intervertebral disc displacement of the lumbar region. 

In a procedure note dated February 3, 2021, Dr. Vella noted that appellant underwent a 

lumbar discogram, which showed findings of lumbar pain and degenerative disc disease.

On April 21, 2021 appellant underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1 and 

discectomy.

In a May 26, 2021 letter and May 27, 2021 report, Dr. Holt described the September 18, 

2020 work incident and reported that it was “most likely” an aggravation of the preexisting injury. 

He noted diagnoses of lumbar radiculopathy, other spinal instabilities of the lumbar region, other 

intervertebral disc displacement in the lumbar region, and other disc degeneration in the lumbar 

spine. 

In a June 22, 2021 decision, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the January 5, 2021 

decision. 

OWCP subsequently administratively combined OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx088, xxxxxx425, 

and xxxxxx684, with the latter designated as the master file. 

Appellant appealed to the Board. By decision dated March 16, 2022, the Board affirmed 

the June 22, 2021 decision.6

Appellant submitted Dr. Thomas’ July 2, 2020 letter with an addendum note dated 

March 22, 2022. Dr. Thomas indicated that on September 18, 2020 appellant was at work when 

she “felt her disc move and developed numbness and tingling in the hands and weakness in the 

legs.” He reported that she was not able to stand to be fully evaluated, and was referred to the 

hospital.

On April 1, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration. 

Appellant submitted a September 18, 2020 report by Dr. Shabnam Guard, a Board-certified 

family practitioner, who indicated that appellant was at work on that date when she felt the disc in 

her back move, and developed numbness and tingling in her hands and weakness in the legs. She 

reported that she could not examine appellant’s lumbar spine because appellant was in a lot of pain 

6

Supra note 4.
4

and was unable to stand. Dr. Guard diagnosed respiratory disease screening, depression screening, 

obesity, backache, and unsteady gait.7

In a report dated January 4, 2022, Dr. Alan M. Babb, a Board-certified emergency 

medicine physician, indicated that appellant was evaluated for chronic back pain. He noted that 

she suffered a stroke with speech deficit a few months after her lumbar fusion surgery in 

April 2021. On physical examination, Dr. Babb observed normal straight leg reflex and anterior 

flexion to 60 degrees. He diagnosed chronic low back pain, stroke with speech disorder, and 

hypertension. Dr. Babb reported that the “cause of her current back pain is unknown.”

In a psychology report dated January 6, 2022, Dr. Marnie Smith Dillon, a licensed clinical 

psychologist, diagnosed speech sound disorder and other adverse effects of medication. She 

recounted that appellant injured her lower back, and had a stroke after surgery in April 2021. 

By decision dated July 7, 2022, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision.8

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA9 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,10 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.11 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.12

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, OWCP must first determine 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 

7

In a June 1, 2022 statement, appellant explained that she had a typographical error in her injury statement as she 

wrote September 17, 2020 instead of September 18, 2020. She clarified that she notified management on 

September 18, 2020.

8 OWCP noted that it was denying modification of the Board’s March16, 2022 decision. However, OWCP has no 

jurisdiction to review a Board decision. The decisions and orders of the Board are final as to the subject matter 

appealed and such decisions and orders are not subject to review, except by the Board. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d). 

Appellant had 30 days from the date of the Board’s March16, 2022 decision to file a petition for reconsideration with 

this Board of its decision. Id. at § 501.7. See also C.M., Docket No. 19-1211 (issued August5, 2020); B.B., Docket 

No. 14-0464 (issued June 4, 2014).

9

Supra note 2.

10 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

11 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); 

James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

12 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); 

L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
5

must submit sufficient evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.13 

To establish causal relationship between a diagnosed condition, as well as any attendant 

disability claimed, and the accepted employment incident, the employee must submit rationalized 

medical opinion evidence.14 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 incident identified by the employee.15 

In a case in which 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.16

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted September 18, 2020 employment incident.

Initially, the Board notes that it is unnecessary to consider the evidence appellant submitted 

prior to the issuance of OWCP’s June 22, 2021 decision, which was considered by the Board in its 

March 16, 2022 decision. Findings made in prior Board decisions are res judicata absent further 

merit review by OWCP under section 8128 of FECA.17

In a March 22, 2022 addendum note, Dr. Thomas related that on September 18, 2020 

appellant was at work when she felt her disc move and developed numbness and tingling in the 

hands and weakness in the legs. While he accurately described the September 18, 2020 

employment incident, he did not provide an opinion on causal relationship between the specific 

employment incident and her diagnosed lumbar conditions. The Board has held that medical 

evidence that does not offer an opinion on causal relationship is of no probative value.

18

 This 

report, therefore, is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

In a September 18, 2020 report, Dr. Guard indicated that appellant was at work on that day 

when she felt the disc in her back move and developed numbness and tingling in her hands and 

13 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); David 

Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

14 S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); S.A., Docket No. 18-0399 (issued October 16, 2018); see 

also Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

15 T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); C.F., Docket No. 18-0791 (issued February 26, 2019); M.V., 

Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 

345 (1989).

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

17 G.B., Docket No. 19-1448 (issued August21, 2020); E.B., Docket No. 17-1497 (issued March 19, 2019); 

Robert G. Burns, 57 ECAB 657 (2006). 

18 L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
6

weakness in the legs. She reported that she could not examine appellant’s lumbar spine and 

diagnosed respiratory disease screening, depression screening, obesity, backache, and unsteady 

gait. However, Dr. Guard failed to offer an opinion on causal relationship. Likewise, in a 

January 6, 2022 report, Dr. Dillon did not provide an opinion on the cause of appellant’s speech 

sound disorder. As noted above, the Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an 

opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition or disability is of no probative value on 

the issue of causal relationship.19 Thus, the Board finds that these reports are insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof. 

In a January 4, 2022 report, Dr. Babb indicated that appellant was evaluated for chronic 

back pain. He conducted an examination and diagnosed chronic low back pain, stroke with speech 

disorder, and hypertension. Dr. Babb reported that the “cause of her current back pain is 

unknown.” As he does not provide an opinion on causal relationship, this report is also of no 

probative value.

20

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

related to the accepted September 18, 2020 employment incident, 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 lumbar 

condition causally related to the accepted September 18, 2020 employment incident.

19 Id.

20 Id. 
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 7, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 5, 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