United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Waukegan, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0430

Issued: September 26, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Stephanie N. Leet, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 28, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an August 5, 

2021 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 her burden of proof to establish a lumbar condition 

causally related to the accepted August 23, 2018 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 27, 2018 appellant, then a 62-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on August 23, 2018 she injured her low back when a car struck the rear 

of her mail truck while in the performance of duty.

3

In a September 11, 2018 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish her 

claim. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

OWCP received an August 28, 2018 report from Dr. Pessoolal S. Chhabria, a Boardcertified neurologist. Dr. Chhabria related appellant’s August 23, 2018 injury history, noting that

appellant had no symptoms until the following day and that she had not worked since 

August 24, 2018. He diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy and found that appellant was unable to 

return to work.

In duty status report (Form CA-17) dated August 28, 2018, Dr. Chhabria noted that on 

August 23, 2018 appellant injured her low back when her vehicle was rear ended. Physical 

examination findings included lumbosacral tenderness on palpation, bilateral paraspinal muscle 

spasm, and positive bilateral straight left raising. Dr. Chhabria diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy, 

which he attributed to the injury, and found appellant totally disabled. 

In a September 4, 2018 disability certificate, Dr. Chhabria found appellant totally disabled 

for the period September 4 to 10, 2018. He, in a September 17, 2018 return to work note, released 

appellant to return to work on September 20, 2018, with no lifting over 30 to 40 pounds. 

OWCP received a September 28, 2018 report from Dr. Chhabria wherein he related that 

appellant’s physical examination findings included lumbosacral tenderness on palpation and 

bilateral paraspinal muscle spasms. Dr. Chhabria diagnosed lumbago and lumbar radiculopathy. 

In a disability certificate of even date, he certified that appellant had been totally disabled from 

September 28 to October 5, 2018. In a Form CA-17 also dated September 28, 2018, Dr. Chhabria

noted that she had back pain radiating to her right leg. He diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy and

noted appellant’s work restrictions. 

By decision dated October 18, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It accepted that the 

August 23, 2018 incident occurred as alleged and that, a lumbar condition had been diagnosed,

however, it denied her claim finding that she had failed to establish causal relationship between 

the accepted employment incident and the diagnosed condition.

3 The record reflects that on June 12, 2015appellant sustained a lumbar strain during an automobile accident, which 

was accepted under OWCP File No. xxxxxx926. 
3

OWCP received a copy of an August 23, 2018 police reportrelating to appellant’s accident, 

and her response to questions posed by OWCP.

On November 13, 2018 appellant requested a review of the written record by a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

OWCP received an October 19, 2018 report from Dr. Chhabria which was repetitive of 

prior reports. Dr. Chhabria diagnosed lumbago and lumbar radiculopathy.

In a November 5, 2018 report, Dr. Chhabria noted that appellant was seen for a workrelated automobile accident and noted, active problems of lumbar herniated intervertebral disc, 

lumbar radiculopathy, and lumbago. Physical examination findings were unchanged. A review 

of appellant’s magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan demonstrated progression of lumbar L5-S1 

disc herniation. Under assessment Dr. Chhabria reported obesity, lumbago, lumbar canal stenosis, 

and lumbar radiculopathy. He found appellant disabled from work. 

By decision dated March 25, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

October 18, 2018 decision. 

On March 5, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted a 

November 22, 2019 report from Dr. Chhabria and MRI scans dated November 11, 2016 and 

October 29, 2018. 

Appellant’s November 11, 2016 MRI scan revealed mild L5 nerve root compression, L4-5 

left foraminal disc protrusion, advanced left L4-5 degenerative facet arthropathy with acute 

inflammatory component, multilevel degenerative disc and facet changes without significant 

foraminal or canal stenosis, and moderate right concave lumbar scoliosis.

Appellant’s October 29, 2018 MRI scan showed multilevel lumbar degenerative disc 

disease, L4-5 left lateral osteophyte formation and marked disc bulging, severe vertebral canal 

stenosis, severe left L4-5 foraminal stenosis, moderate right L4-5 foraminal stenosis, moderate 

L5-S1 vertebral canal stenosis, moderate L5-S1 foraminal and right foraminal stenosis, moderately 

severe L3-4 vertebral canal stenosis, and moderate left L4-5 foraminal stenosis. 

Dr. Chhabria, in his November 22, 2019 report, related that he had treated appellant since 

August 16, 2016 for low back pain radiating into both legs from a June 12, 2015 work-related 

automobile accident. He noted that she returned to her regular work without restrictions on 

December 2, 2016. Dr. Chhabria further related that appellant was involved in another workrelated automobile accident on August 23, 2018 which caused severe lower back pain radiating 

into her legs. A review of MRI scan demonstrated L5-S1 herniated disc, which he found consistent 

with her symptoms. Dr. Chhabria diagnosed L5-S1 disc herniation, lumbar radiculopathy, and 

lumbago. He attributed appellant’s L5-S1 disc herniation to the accepted August 23, 2018 work 

incident. In support of this conclusion, Dr. Chhabria explained that pressure was placed on the 

spinal disc by the sudden jarring of the spine and forward/backward motion causing nucleus 

pulposus pushed through and creating a L5-S1 hearing disc. Additionally, he explained that 

appellant developed radiculopathy due to inflammation, swelling of the tissues, and pressure on 

the nerve caused by the lateral herniation. Dr. Chhabria reported that her injury was new as no 

L5-S1 herniated disc was seen on the 2016 MRI scan.
4

By decision dated June 1, 2020, OWCP denied modification.

On May 17, 2021 appellant through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted an 

October 8, 2020 report from Dr. Chhabria in support of her request. 

Dr. Chhabria, in an October 8, 2020 report, summarized appellant’s medical history 

beginning in 2003 when she was treated for low back pain and radicular leg symptoms and 

continuing. Based on his review of the records, her history of injury, and examination findings, 

he opined that the August 23, 2018 incident aggravated her degenerative disc disease, aggravated 

her lumbar canal stenosis, and caused the diagnosed lumbago and lumbar radiculopathy. 

Dr. Chhabria explained that these conditions were caused by the sudden jerking of appellant’s

body forward and backward in the automobile. Specifically, he explained that spinal stenosis is a 

narrowing of the spinal spaces which places pressure on nerves traveling throughout the spine. 

The abrupt jerking from the impart of the vehicle caused substantial torque on appellant’s back 

which aggravated her spinal stenosis and L5-S1 disc herniation. According to Dr. Chhabria, the 

aggravation of her spinal stenosis resulted in lower back spinal inflammation which led to lower 

back spinal nerve compression, bulging disc aggravation, low back pain, and leg weakness. In 

concluding, he opined that the L5-S1 aggravated disc, lumbar radiculopathy, aggravated 

degenerative disc disease, and aggravated spinal stenosis were a direct and natural consequence 

flowing from appellant’s mail truck being rear ended while at a traffic stop. Furthermore, the 

diagnosed conditions were not a natural progression or degenerative in nature, but were aggravated 

by the traumatic August 23, 2018 work injury. Dr. Chhabria explained the difference between a 

natural progression of lumbar degenerative disease, which is slowly progressive, and appellant’s 

condition, which was a sudden onset and the tiny tears caused by the traumatic incident.

By decision dated August 5, 2021, OWCP denied modification.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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,5that 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.

6

 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.

7

4

Supra note 2.

5 A.C., Docket No. 21-1307 (issued March 22, 2022); F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., 

Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

6 A.C., id.; 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).

7 A.C., id.; P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 

2016); DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
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. There 

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component is that 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. The second component is 

whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and can be established only by medical 

evidence.

8

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific 

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence.

9

 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 claimant.

10

In any 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.

11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted multiple reports from her treating physician,

Dr. Chhabria. In his November 22, 2019 and October 8, 2020 narrative reports, Dr. Chhabria

discussed appellant’s medical and injury histories, reviewed diagnostic reports, and provided 

findings on physical examination. He indicated that her latest MRI scan was consistent with her 

symptoms and showed that her degenerative disc disease had been aggravated by her work duties. 

Dr. Chhabria opined, based on the history of injury, MRI scans, and physical examination findings, 

that she sustained an aggravation of her conditions from the accepted August 23, 2018 employment 

incident. He noted that he had treated appellant following her work-related June 12, 2015 

employment injury, which was accepted for lumbar sprain, and he further opined that her lumbar 

radiculopathy, L5-S1 herniated disc, aggravation of lumbar stenosis and aggravation of 

degenerative disc disease were caused by the sudden jarring when her vehicle was rear ended on 

August 23, 2018. Dr. Chhabria concluded that abrupt body jerking from the rear ending of her

8 G.R., Docket No. 21-1195 (issued March17, 2022); T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., 

Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January9, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

9 A.C., supra note 5; 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).

10 G.R., supra note 8; A.S., Docket No. 19-1955 (issued April9, 2020); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

11 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e 

(January2013); A.C., supra note 5; M.B., Docket No. 20-1275 (issued January 29, 2021);see R.D., Docket No. 18-

1551 (issued March 1, 2019).
6

vehicle resulted in substantial torque or stress on her back causing inflammation of the spine 

resulting in spinal cord compression of the lower back spinal nerve. The Board finds that

Dr. Chhabria’s opinion, while not sufficiently rationalized to meet appellant’s burden of proof, is 

sufficient, given the absence of opposing medical evidence, to require further development of the 

evidence.12

It is well established that, proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature, and that 

while appellant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares 

responsibility in the development of the evidence.13 OWCP has an obligation to see that justice is 

done.

14

On remand, OWCP shall combine OWCP File No. xxxxxx926 with the present case file.

15

 

It shall thereafter refer appellant, a statement of accepted facts, and the medical record to a 

specialist in the appropriate field of medicine for an evaluation and a well-rationalized opinion as 

to whether the diagnosed conditions are causally related to the accepted August 23, 2018

employment incident. If the physician opines that the diagnosed conditions are not causally related 

to the accepted employment incident, he or she must explain, with rationale, how or why the 

opinion differs from that of Dr. Chhabria. Following this and such other further development as 

deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision regarding appellant’s claim.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

12 A.G., Docket No. 21-0656 (issued February16, 2022); A.D., Docket No. 21-0143 (issued November 15, 2021);

R.B., Docket No. 18-0162 (issued July 24, 2019); J.G., Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February13, 2018). See JohnJ. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); Horace Langhorne, 29 ECAB 820 (1978).

13 A.G., id.; A.D., id.; A.P., Docket No. 17-0813 (issued January 3, 2018); Jimmy A. Hammons, 51 ECAB 219, 223 

(1999); WilliamJ. Cantrell, 34 ECAB 1233, 1237 (1983).

14 A.G., id.; J.N., Docket No. 20-1287 (issued October 26, 2021); B.C., Docket No. 15-1853 (issued January 19, 

2016); E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 2010).

15 OWCP’s procedures provide that cases should be administratively combined when correct adjudication of the 

issues depends on frequent cross-referencing between files. Supra note 11 at Chapter 2.400.8c (February 2000). For 

example, if a new injury case is reported for an employee who previously filed an injury claim for a similar condition 

or the same part of the body, doubling is required. Id.; L.M., Docket No. 19-1490 (issued January 29, 2020); L.H., 

Docket No 18-1777 (issued July 2, 2019).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 5, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: September 26, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board