United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Columbia, SC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0099

Issued: July 26, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Lawrence Keitt, 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 October 31, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a September 9, 

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.

ISSUE

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

causally related to the accepted November 20, 2020 employment incident.

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 23, 2020 appellant, then a 46-year-old postal rural carrier, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 20, 2020 she sustained a lumbar strain when

lifting large packages from the floor while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on 

November 20, 2020 and returned on November 23, 2020. 

Appellant provided a November 20, 2020 narrative statement, relating that on that date she 

was casing mail and proceeded to pick up a large package, barely managing to place it in the bin. 

She explained that when she picked up a second large package, she felt a “very sharp pain” in her 

back. Appellant explained that a coworker asked if she needed help, but at this point “it was 

already too late.” 

By development letter dated November 23, 2020, OWCP requested additional information 

from appellant. It provided a questionnaire for her completion seeking further information about 

the claimed employment incident. OWCP also requested that appellant submit a medical report 

from her attending physician explaining how her federal employment caused, contributed to, or 

aggravated her medical condition. It afforded her 30 days to submit the requested information.

OWCP received work status reports dated November 20 and December 7, 2020 from

Dr. Herold Nazon, a family medicine specialist. These reports noted diagnoses of lumbar strain 

and degenerative lumbar disc disease and provided work restrictions. 

November 20, 2020 x-rays of appellant’s spine revealed lumbar disease, with disc 

narrowing at several levels and osteophyte formation and slight anterior slippage at L4 -5. 

OWCP received November 23 and December 9, 2020 offers of modified duty. On 

December 13, 2020 appellant refused the modified work offer. 

In a December 3, 2020 letter, the employing establishment controverted the claim, 

contending that causal relationship had not been established. 

On December 13, 2020 appellant completed OWCP’s development questionnaire. She 

described her work injury and explained that, after she had lifted two large parcels, a third parcel 

weighed between 70 to 85 pounds, and when she went down to lift it, she felt a sharp pain which 

rushed through her back. Appellant denied any prior similar symptoms to her lumbar spine and 

indicated that she had no treatment for her spine prior to November 20, 2020. She noted that her 

physician diagnosed a lumbar strain and degenerative disc disorder. Appellant provided a 

December 12, 2020 statement, advising that when she returned to work on November 23, 2020 

D.B. instructed her to case mail, despite her work restrictions. Appellant also noted that the 

breakroom chair did not properly support her lumbar spine. 

In a December 22, 2020 report, Dr. Christopher M. Stanley, a Board-certified family 

practitioner, noted that appellant was injured at work on November 20, 2020 when she was lifting 

packages at work. He examined her and diagnosed left lumbar radiculopathy, lumbar degenerative 

disc disease, lumbar facet arthropathy, and accident at workplace. Dr. Stanley ordered a magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan of appellant’s lumbar spine. 
3

By decision dated January 7, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

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

causally related to the accepted November 20, 2020 employment incident.

OWCP received a work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c) dated December 30, 2020, 

as well as January 19 and July 14, 2021 work restriction forms from Dr. Stanley. Dr. Stanley

diagnosed lumbar strain and provided work restrictions. 

On August 12, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. 

OWCP received a January 19, 2021 Form OWCP-5c signed by Dr. Stanley, which

indicated that appellant suffered a work injury causinglumbar strain. In a January 26, 2021 report,

Dr. Stanley did not note her history of injury. He opined that appellant’s condition appeared to 

stem from a work-related injury. Dr. Stanley indicated that an incident appeared to have occurred 

at work and the incident appeared to have arisen during the performance of her normal duty. He 

concluded that appellant’s injury appeared to be causally related to the employment incident. 

In an August 11, 2021 work restriction form, Dr. Arthur B. Jordan, a Board-certified family 

practitioner, diagnosed lumbar degenerative disease and released appellant to work on August 12, 

2021 without restrictions.

By decision dated October 26, 2021, OWCP denied modification of the January 7, 2021 

decision. 

On June 13, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration. 

In a May 18, 2022 report, Dr. Stanley noted appellant’s date of injury as November 20, 

2020 and opined that her “lumbar spine symptoms were caused by the aforementioned accident.” 

He explained that his diagnoses at the initial appointment included left ulnar radiculopathy, lumbar 

degenerative disease, and lumbar facet arthropathy. Dr. Stanley noted that appellant clearly stated 

that she was “injured at work on [November 20, 2020].” He explained that he ordered conservative 

treatment and a lumbar spine MRI scan. Dr. Stanley examined appellant and diagnosed 

degenerative disc changes at L2-3 and L3-4, and potentially some pressure effect on the right L3 

root in the foramen at L3-4, with no canal stenosis at any level and no disc herniation. He opined 

that “this injury is correlated to the workplace accident on November 20, 2020. The initial 

diagnoses indicate chronic pathology initially, but after the MRI [scan], confirmed L3 nerve root 

pathology, which could have been caused by the workplace accident. The chronic conditions, 

combined with the L3 nerve root abnormality, appeared to be exacerbated by the workplace 

accident.” 

By decision dated September 9, 2022, OWCP denied modification of the October 26, 2021 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including the fact that the individual is an employee of the 

United States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable 
4

time limitation period 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 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 if an employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Fact of injury 

consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The first 

component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that allegedly 

occurred.6 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury.7

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.8 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factor(s) must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background.9 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be 

expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical 

rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s 

specific employment factor(s).10

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted November 20, 2020 employment incident.

OWCP received work status reports dated November 20 and December 7, 2020 from

Dr. Nazon, which noted diagnoses of lumbar strain and degenerative lumbar disc disease. These 

reports, however, offered no opinion regarding causal relationship. The Board has held that 

medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is 

3

See O.R., Docket No. 20-1518 (issued November 17, 2022); S.B.,Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018);

J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

4 L.S., Docket No. 19-1769 (issued July 10, 2020); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

5 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).

6 B.P., Docket No. 16-1549 (issued January 18, 2017); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

7 M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8 T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

9 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018).

10 B.C., Docket No. 20-0221 (issued July 10, 2020); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).
5

of no probative value.11 For this reason, the Board finds that Dr. Nazon’s reports are insufficient 

to establish appellant’s claim.

OWCP also received several reports from appellant’s treating physician, Dr. Stanley. In 

reports dated December 30, 2020 and January 19 and July 14, 2021, Dr. Stanley similarly noted 

her diagnosis of lumbar strain, but offered no opinion regarding causal relationship. As previously 

noted, a medical report lacking an opinion regarding causal relationship is insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim.12

In a December 22, 2020 report and January 19, 2021 Form OWCP-5c, Dr. Stanley noted 

that appellant suffered a work injury. He diagnosed lumbar strain. However, Dr. Stanley did not 

provide an opinion on causal relationship. As previously noted, a medical report lacking an 

opinion regarding causal relationship is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.13

In a January 26, 2022 report, Dr. Stanley indicated that appellant’s condition appeared to 

stem from a work-related injury. The Board has held that medical opinions that are speculative or 

equivocal are of diminished probative value.14 Therefore, this evidence is insufficient to establish 

the claim.

In a May 18, 2022 report, Dr. Stanley opined that appellant’s “lumbar spine symptoms 

were caused by the aforementioned accident.” He noted that she clearly stated that she was 

“injured at work on [November 20, 2020].” Dr. Stanley explained that a lumbar spine MRI scan 

revealed degenerative disc changes at L2-3 and L3-4, and potentially some pressure effect on the 

right L3 root in the foramen at L3-4, with no canal stenosis at any level and no disc herniation. He

opined that “this injury is correlated to the workplace accident on November 20, 2020.... The 

chronic conditions, combined with the L3 nerve root abnormality, appeared to be exacerbated by 

the workplace accident.” Dr. Stanley’s opinion is conclusory in nature as he did not explain with 

rationale how the accepted incident physiologically caused appellant’s diagnosed conditions.15 

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

In an August 11, 2021 report, Dr. Jordan diagnosed lumbar degenerative disease, but did 

not provide an opinion regarding causal relationship. As previously noted, 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 and is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.16

11 J.H., Docket No. 20-1414 (issued April5, 2022); S.W., Docket No. 19-1579 (issued October 9, 2020); L.B., 

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

12 Id.

13 Id.

14 See C.C., Docket No. 22-0609 (issued October 25, 2022); H.A.,Docket No. 18-1455 (issued August23, 2019).

15 B.P., Docket No. 21-0872 (issued December 8, 2021); L.S., Docket No. 20-0570 (issued December 15, 2020); 

E.H., Docket No. 19-1352 (issued December 18, 2019); E.C., Docket No. 17-1645 (issued June 11, 2018).

16 Supra note 11.
6

The Board notes that appellant submitted diagnostic reports, including x-rays of the lumbar 

spine. The Board has held, however, that diagnostic test reports, standing alone, lack probative 

value as they do not provide an opinion on causal relationship between an employment incident,

and a diagnosed condition.17 Thus, this evidence is also insufficient to establish the claim.

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing a lumbar 

condition causally related to the accepted November 20, 2022 employment incident, the Board 

finds that she 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 November 20, 2020 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 9, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 26, 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

17 W.M., Docket No. 19-1853 (issued May 13, 2020); L.F., Docket No. 19-1905 (issued April 10, 2020).